{"id":"alj-H403993-2025-10-07","awcc_number":"H403993","decision_date":"2025-10-07","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Brandyn Nelson","employer_name":"Baptist Health","title":"NELSON VS. BAPTIST HEALTH AWCC# H403993 October 07, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:10","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Nelson_Brandyn_H403993_20251007.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Nelson_Brandyn_H403993_20251007.pdf","text_length":6130,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H403993 \n \nBRANDYN NELSON, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nBAPTIST HEALTH, \nSELF-INSURED EMPLOYER                                                                           RESPONDENT  \n \nCLAIMS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, \nTPA                                                                                                                        RESPONDENT \n \n \n \nOPINION FILED OCTOBER 7, 2025 \n \nHearing conducted on Tuesday, September 9, 2025, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission  (the  Commission),  Administrative  Law  Judge (ALJ) Steven  Porch,  in Little  Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant is Pro Se, of Little Rock, Arkansas.  \n \nThe Respondents were represented by Ms. Melissa Wood, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This matter comes before the Commission on a Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondents \non July 7, 2025.  A hearing on the motion was conducted on September 9, 2025, in Little Rock, \nArkansas.  Claimant, according to Commission file is Pro Se, failed to appear at the hearing.  \nThe  Claimant  worked  for  the  Respondent/Employer  as  a hospital  professional.  The  date \nfor  Claimant’s  alleged  injury  was  on January   27,   2023. He   reported   his injury   to \nRespondent/Employer on the same day as the incident. Admitted into evidence was Respondents’ \nExhibit 1,  pleadings,  and  correspondence,  consisting  of 10 pages,  and Commission  Ex. 1, \ncorrespondence, and U.S. Mail return receipts, consisting of 8 pages, as discussed infra. \n\nNELSON, AWCC No. H403993 \n \n2 \n \nThe record reflects on June 21, 2024, a Form AR-C was filed by then-attorney Laura Beth \nYork, purporting that Claimant sustained work-related injury when he was stuck by a needle from \na trash can. The form further purported that the Claimant was diagnosed with HIV. On June 26, \n2024,  a  Form  AR-1  was  filed  with  the  Commission noting  that the  incident  occurred  when \nClaimant was pulling trash out of an emergency room exam room when a needle from a trash can \nstuck  him  in  his  hand. On June  26,  2024,  a  Form  AR-2  was  filed  accepting  compensability.  \nHowever,  on  November  12,  2024,  an  amended Form  AR-2  was  filed by  Respondents denying \ncompensability.  \nOn May 23, 2025, Claimant’s counsel file a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. The \nFull  Commission  granted  Claimant  counsel’s  motion  on  June  12,  2025. On July  7,  2025, \nRespondents filed  a  Motion  to  Dismiss due  to Claimant’s failure to  prosecute his claim. The \nClaimant  was  sent, on July 10,  2025, notice  of  the  Motion  to  Dismiss, via certified  and  regular \nU.S. Mail, to his last known address. The certified motion notice was not claimed by Claimant as \nnoted on the July 25, 2025, return receipt. This notice sent regular U.S. Mail did not return to the \nCommission. The  Claimant  did not respond  to  the  Motion,  in  writing,  as  required. Thus,  in \naccordance with applicable Arkansas law, the Claimant was mailed due and proper legal notice of \nRespondents’ Motion to Dismiss hearing date at his current address of record via the United States \nPostal  Service  (USPS), First  Class  Certified  Mail,  Return  Receipt  Requested,  and  regular  First-\nClass Mail, on August 7, 2025. The certified notice was claimed as noted by the August 14, 2025, \nreturn receipt. Likewise,  the  hearing  notice  sent  regular  First-Class  was  not  returned  to  the \nCommission. The  hearing  took  place  on September  9,  2025.  And  as  mentioned  before,  the \nClaimant did not show up to the hearing. \n \n\nNELSON, AWCC No. H403993 \n \n3 \n \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After reviewing the record as a whole and other matters properly before the Commission, \nI hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012):  \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The  Claimant  and  Respondents  both  had  reasonable  notice  of  the September  9, \n2025, hearing. \n \n3. Respondents have proven by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has \nfailed to prosecute his claim under 11 C.A.R. §25-110(d) (formerly AWCC Rule \n099.13).  \n \n4. The Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \n \n5. This claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice.     \n \n \nIII.  DISCUSSION \n 11 C.A.R. §25-110(d) provides: \nUpon  meritorious  application  to  the  Commission  from  either  party  in  an  action \npending before the Commission, requesting that the claim be dismissed for want of \nprosecution, the Commission may, upon reasonable notice to all parties, enter an \norder dismissing the claim for want of prosecution. \n \nSee generally Johnson v. Triple T Foods, 55 Ark. App. 83, 85, 929 S.W.2d 730 (1996).   \nConsistent  with 11  C.A.R. §25-110(d), the Commission  scheduled  and  conducted  a \nhearing,  with  reasonable  notice, on  the Respondents’ Motion  to Dismiss. The  certified  hearing \nnotice was claimed by Claimant, per the return postal notice bearing the August 14, 2025, date. \nThus, I find by the preponderance of the evidence that reasonable notice was given to the Claimant.  \n\nNELSON, AWCC No. H403993 \n \n4 \n \nFurthermore, 11 C.A.R. §25-110(d) allows the Commission, upon meritorious application, \nto dismiss an action pending before it due to a want of prosecution. The Claimant filed his Form \nAR-C on June 21, 2024. Since then, he has failed to request a bona fide hearing. Therefore, I do \nfind by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has failed to prosecute his claim. Thus, \nRespondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \nCONCLUSION \n Based  on  the Findings  of Fact  and Conclusions  of Law set forth above, Respondents’ \nMotion to Dismiss is hereby granted, and Claimant’s claim is dismissed without prejudice. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n      ________________________________ \n      STEVEN PORCH \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H403993 BRANDYN NELSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT BAPTIST HEALTH, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT CLAIMS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED OCTOBER 7, 2025 Hearing conducted on Tuesday, September 9, 2025, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:35:17.497Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H403993-2025-10-07","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Nelson_Brandyn_H403993_20251007.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}