{"id":"alj-H405026-2025-08-20","awcc_number":"H405026","decision_date":"2025-08-20","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Maurice Brooks","employer_name":"Ax’em Timber Services","title":"BROOKS VS. AX’EM TIMBER SERVICES AWCC# H405026 August 20, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:6","granted:3","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BROOKS_MAURICE_H405026_20250820.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"BROOKS_MAURICE_H405026_20250820.pdf","text_length":4220,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nAWCC FILE No H405026 \n \nMAURICE BROOKS, EMPLOYEE         CLAIMANT \n \nAX’EM TIMBER SERVICES, EMPLOYER                       RESPONDENT No 1 \n \nTECHNOLOGY INSURANCE/AMTRUST, \nCARRIER/TPA                 RESPONDENT No 1 \n \nWILLIAMS LOGGING, LLC, EMPLOYER             RESPONDENT No 2 \n \nAMERICAN INTERSTATE INS. CO./ \nAMERISAFE RISK SERVICES, CARRIER/TPA            RESPONDENT No 2 \n  \n \n \nOPINION FILED 20 AUGUST 2025 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (“the Commission”) \nAdministrative Law Judge JayO. Howe on 3 July 2025 in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. \n \nThe pro se claimant failed to appear. \n \nThe Frye Law Firm, Mr. Bill Frye, appeared for Respondent No 1. \n \nThe Ryburn Law Firm, Mr. Zach Ryburn, appeared for Respondent No 2. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n This case relates to an alleged workplace injury occurring on 3 July 2024. A hearing \non the respondents’ Motion to Dismiss was held on this matter in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, on 3 \nJuly 2025. The record from the hearing consists of the hearing transcript, Respondents No \n1’s Exhibit No 1 (a Form AR-C filed on 6 August 2024 and a Form AR-2 dated 21 August \n2024), and Commission’s Exhibit No 1 (a Form AR-C filed on 26 August 2024 and mailing \nreceipts from Commission correspondence with the claimant). I am also blue-backing to this \nopinion (1) a copy of a Full Commission Order dated 30 October 2024 that grants a request \nof withdrawal for the claimant’s counsel, (2) Respondent No 2’s Motion to Dismiss, (3) an \n\nM. BROOKS- H405026 \n2 \n \nemail from Respondent No 1 joining in the request for a dismissal, and (4) a letter to the \nclaimant providing notice of the Motion to Dismiss. In accordance with Sapp v. Tyson \nFoods, Inc., 2010 Ark. App. 517, 2010 Ark. App. LEXIS 549, those documents are being \nserved on the parties in conjunction with this opinion. \nThe claimant was originally represented by counsel in this matter. On 30 October \n2024, as noted above, the Full Commission granted a request by the claimant’s counsel to \nwithdraw from the case. Then, on 27 February 2025, Respondent No 2 moved for a \ndismissal. They stated that the claim had initially been denied in its entirety and that the \nclaimant had since failed to prosecute his claim or request a hearing. The following day, \nRespondent No 1 joined in the request for a dismissal.  \nNotice of the respondents’ motion was sent to the claimant, consistent with \nCommission practices, via First Class Mail and Certified Mail, on 3 March 2025. A proof of \ndelivery receipt shows that the claimant received that letter on 10 March 2025. He did not \nfile an objection to the motion or otherwise respond to that notice letter. A hearing on the \nmotion was then set, with notice to the claimant sent in the same manner. He failed to \nappear at the hearing to argue against a dismissal of the claim. \nFINDINDGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After reviewing the record as a whole, I hereby make the following findings of fact \nand conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n 1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter. \n2. The parties were provided with reasonable notice of the Motion to Dismiss \nand the hearing on that motion. \n \n3. The evidence preponderates that the claimant has failed to prosecute his \nclaim under Commission Rule 099.13 (now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d)). \n \n4. A dismissal of the claim without prejudice is appropriate. \n \n \n\nM. BROOKS- H405026 \n3 \n \nDISCUSSION \nThe respondents appeared on 3 July 2025 and argued in favor of a dismissal without \nprejudice. The record does not reflect any effort by the claimant to prosecute his claim since \nthe withdrawal of his counsel. The claimant has not requested a hearing on any issue ripe \nfor litigation. And the respondent failed to appear to argue against the dismissal of his \nclaim. The respondents’ motion to dismiss this claim for initial benefits is granted. The \ndismissal is without prejudice. \nORDER \n The Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted. This claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT \nPREJUDICE.  \nSO ORDERED. \n________________________________ \n       JAYO. HOWE \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWCC FILE No H405026 MAURICE BROOKS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT AX’EM TIMBER SERVICES, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT No 1 TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE/AMTRUST, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT No 1 WILLIAMS LOGGING, LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT No 2 AMERICAN INTERSTATE INS. CO./ AMERISAFE RISK SERVICES, CAR...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:37:43.660Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H405026-2025-08-20","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BROOKS_MAURICE_H405026_20250820.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}