{"id":"alj-H404694-2025-06-02","awcc_number":"H404694","decision_date":"2025-06-02","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Clayton Abel","employer_name":"Easter Seals Arkansas","title":"ABEL VS. EASTER SEALS ARKANSAS AWCC# H404694 June 02, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:5","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","back","rotator cuff"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/ABEL_CLAYTON_H404694_20250602.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"ABEL_CLAYTON_H404694_20250602.pdf","text_length":7335,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n   \n CLAIM NO. H404694 \nCLAYTON B. ABEL, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nEASTER SEALS ARKANSAS, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nRISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT \n \n \n OPINION FILED JUNE 2, 2025 \n \n \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Fort Smith, Sebastian \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant is pro se and did not appear at the hearing. \n \nRespondents represented by MELISSA WOOD, Attorney,  Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n  \n On May 19, 2025, the above captioned claim came on for a hearing at Fort Smith, Sebastian \nCounty, Arkansas. A pre-hearing conference was conducted on April 10, 2025, and a pre-hearing order \nwas filed on April 18, 2025. A copy of the pre-hearing order has been marked as Commission’s Exhibit \n#1 and made a part of the record without objection. \nThere were no stipulations entered between the parties, as respondents denied claimant was \nan employee and therefore the Commission did not have jurisdiction over his claim.  \nBy agreement of the parties, the issues to be litigated and resolved at the forthcoming hearing \nwere limited to the following: \n1.  Whether claimant was an employee of respondent, Easter Seals Arkansas, on October \n10, 2022. \n \n2. If so, did claimant suffer a compensable injury on October 10, 2022. \n3. If so, is the claimant entitled to medical benefits and indemnity benefits. \n\nAbel-H404694 \n2 \n \n \n4. If so, is the claimant entitled to mileage for doctor’s visits.  \nAll other issues are reserved by the parties. \nThe claimant contends that “On October 10, 2022, the accident occurred. He was lifting a 44-\npound bag of dog food for a customer. The department manager, Ron, was not there. Clayton felt \nsomething  pop  in  his  left  shoulder. He  immediately  told  the  teacher  in  charge,  Sara  Duren,  of \nSouthside High School in Fort Smith. Ms. Duren responded back “if I can handle it, you can handle \nit” and Clayton continued his work shift that day. The claimant came home that evening complaining \nof left shoulder pain, and Christina took him to the doctor the next day October 11, 2022, with his \nPCP at UAMS Fort Smith. The injury at the time of initial visit was a possible torn rotator cuff. The \nPCP ordered the claimant pain meds, MRI.” \nThe respondents contend that “Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission does not have \njurisdiction of this matter, as there was no employer-employee relationship at the time of the incident. \nClaimant  was  participating  in  a  school  program  to  get  work  experience  and  was  never  deemed  an \nactual employee. This participation was through a grant program with Easter Seals where claimant was \na student at the time of the incident. In light of this, it is respondents’ position that the Commission \ndoes not have jurisdiction of this matter and should dismiss this claim accordingly. Alternatively, it is \nrespondents’ position that the medical documentation does not support a compensable injury, no does \nit support entitlement to benefits under the Act in the event compensability is found.”     \n           From a review of the entire record, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law are \nmade in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n \n  FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n 1.    Claimant failed to appear at the hearing of this matter, and therefore failed to establish \nthis Court has jurisdiction of his claim. \n\nAbel-H404694 \n3 \n \n \n 2. Respondents’  motion  to  dismiss this  matter  pursuant  to  Arkansas  Workers’ \nCompensation Commission Rule 099.13 is granted. This dismissal is without prejudice.  \n \n FACTUAL BACKGROUND \n This matter was before Administrative Law Judge JayO. Howe on December 11, 2024, for a \nMotion  to Dismiss  filed  by respondent. Judge Howe’s Opinion  of  December  17,  2024,  was  not \nappealed by either party; it is blue backed to the record of this case. In it, Judge Howe sets for the \nchronology  of  this  matter  to  that  point:    Claimant  filed  an  AR-C  form  on  July  23,  2023, alleging a \nworkplace  injury  on  October  10,  2022. Respondents  filed  the  First  Report  of  Injury  and the  Form \nAR-2 on July 25, 2024, denying claimant was employed by respondent. A Motion to Dismiss was filed \non October 11, 2024, alleging the claimant had failed to prosecute his claim. Prior to the hearing on \nthat  motion,  claimant  corresponded  with  the  Court, objecting to  the  matter  being dismissed  and \nrequesting additional time to prosecute the claim. Judge Howe denied respondents’ motion.    \n This  case  was  originally  assigned  to  District  1,  which  includes  Pulaski  County,  Arkansas. \nSubsequently, it was determined that this matter should be transferred to District 2, as it was alleged \nthat the injury occurred in Fort Smith, Arkansas.  Claimant was told when the hearing was scheduled \nduring the prehearing conference. He also received the prehearing order containing the information \nregarding the date and time of the hearing by certified mail on April 24, 2025; the proof of delivery is \nblue backed to the record in this case. \n \nADJUDICATION \n \nRule 099.13 of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission provides, in pertinent part:  \n“Upon  meritorious  application  to  the  Commission  from  either  party  in  an \naction pending before the Commission, requesting that the claim be dismissed \nfor  want  of  prosecution, the  Commission  may,  upon  reasonable  notice  to  all \nparties, enter an order dismissing the claim for want of prosecution.” \n\nAbel-H404694 \n4 \n \n \n \nThis matter was scheduled for a full hearing in Fort Smith, Arkansas, on May 19, 2025, at 1:45 \nP.M. Respondent appeared with a witness, ready to defend this action. Claimant did not appear. After \ntwenty minutes had passed, the Court called the telephone number in the file for claimant, and was \ntold by the party answering that claimant must have forgotten that the hearing was being held that \nday. Respondent  then  made  an  oral  motion  for  a  dismissal  of  the  claim  pursuant  to  A.W.C.C.  R. \n099.13,  which  was  taken  under  advisement. Since  that  time, claimant  has  not  contacted this  Court \nwith an explanation as to why he could not attend the hearing as scheduled.  \n Under these facts, which includes the history of this matter before it was transferred to me, I \nfind claimant did not have good cause to fail to appear at the merits hearing on this claim. He received \nreasonable  notice  of  this  hearing  from  the  Commission.  Claimant failed, without  justification,  to \nestablish that this Court had jurisdiction of his claim. Having failed to prosecute his claim and having \nprovided no explanation to the Commission that would excuse his failure to appear at his hearing, I \nfind dismissal of the instant claim is justified under Rule 13 and hereby grant respondents’ motion. \nWhile the  Commission  has  the authority  to  dismiss  a  matter  with  prejudice, Loosey  v.  Osmose  Wood \nPreserving Co., 23 Ark. App. 137, 744 S.W.2d 402 (1988), I will exercise my discretion and dismiss this \nmatter without prejudice.    \n \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n                                                                                              \n_______     \n JOSEPH C. SELF \nADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H404694 CLAYTON B. ABEL, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT EASTER SEALS ARKANSAS, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JUNE 2, 2025 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Fort Smith, Sebastian County, Arkans...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:39:22.066Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H404694-2025-06-02","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/ABEL_CLAYTON_H404694_20250602.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}