{"id":"alj-H404644-2025-11-25","awcc_number":"H404644","decision_date":"2025-11-25","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Richard Milton","employer_name":"Georgia Pacific LLC","title":"MILTON VS. GEORGIA PACIFIC LLC AWCC# H404644 November 25, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:6","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["back","neck","shoulder"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MILTON_RICHARD_H404644_20251125.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"MILTON_RICHARD_H404644_20251125.pdf","text_length":11883,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n  \n                                                        CLAIM NO.: H404644 \n \nRICHARD MILTON,   \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                CLAIMANT                                                    \n \nGEORGIA PACIFIC LLC,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT                                                                                                  \n \nOLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, \nINSURANCE CARRIER                                                                                        RESPONDENT \n \nESIS, INC., \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR /TPA                                                           RESPONDENT                                                             \n                                                                                                   \n \n                                            OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 25, 2025    \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in El Dorado, Union County, \nArkansas. \n  \nClaimant, Pro Se, failed to appear at the hearing. \n \nRespondents represented  by the  Honorable Rick  Behring,  Jr., Attorney  at  Law, Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n                                                   STATEMENT OF THE CASE      \n \n This  matter  comes  before  the  Commission following a motion  to dismiss filed by the \nrespondents.    A  hearing  on  the  motion  was  conducted  on November 5,  2025,  in El  Dorado, \nArkansas.  Presently the sole issue for determination before the Commission is whether this claim \nshould be dismissed due to the claimant’s failure to prosecute under the provisions of Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-702 (Repl. 2012), and/or Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Rule 099.13 \n(now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110 (d)). \n             The  record  consists of the November 5,  2025,  hearing transcript and documentary \nevidence.  In that regard, Commission’s Exhibit 1 encompassing two (2) actual pages, as it has \n\nMilton – H404644 \n \n2 \n \nbeen marked accordingly, and Respondents’ Exhibit 1 consisting of nine (9) numbered pages was \nthus designated.   \n Reasonable notice of the dismissal hearing was tried on all the parties in the manner  \nestablished by applicable law.   \nNo testimony was taken at the hearing.  \n                        Background \nThe record reflects the following procedural history: \n On July  25,  2024, the claimant filed  a  Form  AR-C,  with  the  Commission, wherein  he \nalleged that he sustained an accidental injury, on June 11, 2024, while working for the respondent-\nemployer.  According  to  this  document,  the  claimant  provided  the  following  description  of  his \nalleged work-related accidental injury during the course and scope of his employment when he fell \ndown a flight of a few steps.  Claimant alleged that he sustained injuries to his back, neck, and \nshoulder.  Per  the  Form  AR-C,  the  claimant  requested only additional workers’ compensation \nbenefits in the form of a change of physician.    \nThe respondents filed an initial Form AR-2, with the Commission on June 22, 2024.  At \nthis time, respondents controverted this claim in its entirety as a compensable claim.  Specifically, \nthe respondents stated that “... injury is denied per Arkansas statutes.”  \n Subsequently, in January 2025, the claimant retained legal counsel to represent him in this \nmatter.  In June 2025, the claimant’s attorney filed a letter with the Commission asking that he be \nremoved as counsel  of  record  for  the claimant in  this  matter.  There was no  objection  to  the \nclaimant’s attorney’s motion to withdraw from representing the claimant in this case.  Therefore, \nthe Full Commission entered an order on July 18, 2025, granting the claimant’s attorney’s motion \nto withdraw from representing him in this matter.   \n\nMilton – H404644 \n \n3 \n \nSince the filing of the Form AR-C, the Claimant has failed to prosecute or otherwise pursue \nhis claim for workers’ compensation benefits.  Specifically, it has been more than six (6) months \nsince the filing of the Form AR-C; but thus far, the claimant has made no bona fide request for a \nhearing with respect to his claim.   \nAs a result, in August 2025, the respondents’ attorney filed with the Commission a Motion \nto Dismiss and Incorporated Brief in Support asking that this claim be dismissed due to a lack of \nprosecution by the claimant.   \nOn August 21, 2025, my office wrote to the claimant and requested a written response to \nthe motion within twenty (20) days.  Said letter was mailed to the claimant by both first-class and \ncertified mail to the address listed by the claimant with the Commission.   \nPer  tracking  information  received  from  the United  States Postal  Service, the  dismissal \nhearing notice sent by certified mail to the claimant was picked up by an individual on August 30, \n2025.  The signature of the recipient of said letter is illegible.  However, the letter sent by first-\nclass mail has not been returned to the Commission.   \nOn September 16, 2025, my office sent a Notice of Hearing to the parties scheduling this \nmatter for a dismissal hearing on November 5, 2025, at the Commission.   Said hearing notice was \nsent to the claimant by both first-class and certified mail to the same address as before.   \nThe Postal Service delivered the  notice  of  hearing to the claimant’s home address on \nSeptember 18, 2025, and left it with an individual.  The signature of the person in receipt of this \nnotice  is  illegible.   However,  the notice sent  by first-class mail has not been returned to  the \nCommission.   Thus,  the above evidence  preponderates  that reasonable notice  of  the dismissal \nhearing was made upon the claimant as required under law.  \n\nMilton – H404644 \n \n4 \n \n Therefore, the dismissal hearing was conducted on the respondents’ motion to dismiss this \nclaim as formerly scheduled.  Despite having received notice of the dismissal hearing, the claimant \ndid  not appear  at  the  hearing.  However,  the respondents  appeared at  the  hearing through their \nlawyer.  The respondent’s counsel argued, among other things, for dismissal of this claim because \nthe claimant  has made  no bona fide  request for  a hearing or taken  any action to prosecute or \notherwise resolve his claim  since the  filing  of  the  Form  AR-C in July  2025.   Specifically, the \nattorney for respondents moved for dismissal without prejudice, under the authority of Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-702, and/or Commission Rule 099.13 (now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d)). \n            Adjudication  \nThe statutory  provisions and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Rule applicable to the \nrespondents’ motion for dismissal of this claim for workers’ compensation benefits are outlined \nbelow:  \nSpecifically, Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702(a)(4) provides:  \nIf within six (6) months after the filing of a claim for compensation, no bona fide \nrequest for a hearing has been made with respect to the claim, the claim may, upon \nmotion and after hearing, be dismissed without prejudice to the refiling of the claim \nwithin the limitation periods specified in subdivisions (a)(1)-(3) of this section. \n \nAdditionally, Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702(d) states:  \nIf within six (6) months after the filing of a claim for additional compensation, no \nbona fide request for a hearing has been made with respect to the claim, the claim \nmay, upon motion and after hearing, if necessary, be dismissed without prejudice \nto the refiling of the claim within the limitation period specified in subsection (b) \nof this section. \n \n Commission Rule 099.13 (now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d)), states: \nThe Commission may, in its discretion, postpone or recess hearings at the instance \nof either party or on its own motion.  No case set for hearing shall be postponed \nexcept by approval of the Commission or Administrative Law Judge. \n \n\nMilton – H404644 \n \n5 \n \nIn the event neither party appears at the initial hearing, the case may be dismissed \nby  the  Commission  or  Administrative  Law  Judge,  and  such  dismissal  order  will \nbecome  final  unless  an  appeal  is  timely  taken  therefrom  or  a  proper  motion  to \nreopen  is  filed with  the  Commission  within  thirty  (30)  days  from  receipt  of  the \norder. \n \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.  (Effective March 1, 1982) \n \nThe evidence shows that the claimant has failed to respond to the written notices of this \nCommission, and he did not appear at the hearing to object to the dismissal motion.  Moreover, \nsince the filing of the Form AR-C, which was done more than six (6) months ago, the claimant has \nnot made a bona fide request for a hearing with respect to his claim.  Considering all the foregoing, \nI am compelled to conclude that the claimant has abandoned his claim for workers’ compensation \nbenefits.   \nAccordingly,  based  on my  review  of  the documentary  evidence,  and  all  other  matters \nproperly  before  the  Commission,  I  find  that  the respondents’ motion  to dismiss  this  claim is \nwarranted  under  the  provisions  of Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-702 (a)(4), §11-9-702 (d),  and Rule \n099.13 (now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d)), of this Commission.  Said dismissal is without \nprejudice, to the refiling of this claim within the limitation period specified by law.   \n                           FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nBased on the record, I hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law \nin accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this \nclaim. \n \n2. In July 2025, the claimant filed a Form AR-C with the Commission in this \nmatter  asserting  his entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits due to \nan alleged accidental injury occurring on June 11, 2024. \n  \n\nMilton – H404644 \n \n6 \n \n 3.         More than six (6) months passed after the filing of the Form AR-C,   \n  and the claimant did not make a bona fide request for a hearing.    \n \n 4. The respondents filed with the Commission a motion to dismiss this claim,  \n                        for which a hearing was held. \n \n5.         Reasonable notice of the motion to dismiss and hearing was had on all the \nparties.  \n \n6.         The evidence preponderates that the respondents’ motion to dismiss this  \n            claim for want of prosecution is warranted.   \n \n7.         That the respondents’ motion to dismiss is hereby granted pursuant to Ark.  \n Code Ann. §11-9-702 (a)(4), §11-9-702 (d), and Commission Rule 099.13,      \n(now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d)), without prejudice, to the refiling     \nof the claim within the specified limitation  period.   \n \nORDER \nIn  accordance  with  the  foregoing  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law,  this  claim is \nhereby dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702 and Commission Rule \n099.13 (now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d)), to the refiling of it within the specified limitation \nperiod.        \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n   \n                                  \n                                                                                     ________________________________ \n                                                                                     CHANDRA L. BLACK  \n                                                    Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H404644 RICHARD MILTON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT GEORGIA PACIFIC LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT ESIS, INC., THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR /TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 25, 2025 Hearing held before Admini...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:34:54.512Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H404644-2025-11-25","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MILTON_RICHARD_H404644_20251125.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}