{"id":"alj-H405444-2025-06-06","awcc_number":"H405444","decision_date":"2025-06-06","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"London Talley","employer_name":"Truckmat Corporation","title":"TALLEY VS. TRUCKMAT CORPORATION AWCC# H405444 June 09, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:7","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["back","neck","shoulder"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/TALLEY_LONDON_H405444_20250606.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"TALLEY_LONDON_H405444_20250606.pdf","text_length":11504,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n  \n                                                        CLAIM NO.: H405444 \n \nLONDON M. TALLEY,   \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                CLAIMANT                                                    \n \nTRUCKMAT CORPORATION,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT                                                                                                  \n \nHARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INS. COMPANY,  \nINSURANCE COMPANY                                                                                      RESPONDENT  \n \nGALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINISTATOR                                                                        RESPONDENT \n \n        \n                                              OPINION FILED JUNE 6, 2025    \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n  \nThe Claimant, 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 \nThis  matter  comes  before  the  Commission pursuant  to  a motion  to dismiss filed by the \nRespondents.  A hearing on the motion was conducted on May 28, 2025, in Little Rock, Arkansas.  \nThus, presently the sole issue for determination is whether this claim should be dismissed due to \nthe Claimant’s failure  to prosecute it  under Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-702 (Repl.  2012),  and/or \nArkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Rule 099.13. \n The record consists of the May 28, 2025, hearing transcript and documentary evidence.   \nIn that regard, Commission’s Exhibit 1 encompassing nine (9) actual pages, as it has which has  \nbeen marked accordingly, and Respondents’ Exhibit 1 consisting of nine (9) numbered pages was \n\nTalley – H405444 \n \n \n2 \n \nthus, so 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 August  22,  2024,  the  Claimant’s  former  attorney filed  a  Form  AR-C,  with  the \nCommission, alleging that the Claimant sustained an accidental injury, on August 8, 2024, while \nworking  for  the  respondent-employer.  According  to  this document, the Claimant allegedly \nsustained compensable injuries when  he  fell  from  a  ladder  injuring  his  brain,  back,  neck, and \nshoulder.  Per this form, the Claimant requested both initial and additional benefits in the form of \ncompensation, medical expenses, and an attorney’s fee.    \nThe  Respondents  initially  filed  a  Form  AR-2, with  the  Commission controverting this \nclaim  in  its  entirety.   Per  this  document,  the  Respondents stated the  following grounds  for \ncontroverting the claim: “Injury did not arise out of and in the scope of employment.” \nSubsequently, on November 4, 2024, the Claimant’s attorney filed with the Commission a \nmotion to withdraw as counsel of record for the Claimant in this matter.  On November 22, the \nFull Commission granted this motion for the Claimant’s attorney to withdraw from representing \nhim in this matter.   \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  Form  AR-C;  but  thus  far,  the  Claimant has  made  no bona  fide  request  for  a \nhearing with respect to his claim.   \n\nTalley – H405444 \n \n \n3 \n \nAs a result, on March 24, 2025, the Respondents filed with the Commission a Motion to \nDismiss and Incorporated Brief in Support, along with a certificate of service.  Per this verification, \nthe Respondents served a copy of the foregoing pleading on the Claimant by placing a copy of it \nin the mail via the United States Postal Service.   \nSubsequently, on March 25, 2025, I wrote to the Claimant and requested a written response \nto the motion within twenty (20) days.  Said letter was mailed to the Claimant by both first-class \nand certified mail to the address listed by the Claimant with the Commission.   \nPer  tracking  information  received  from  the  Postal  Service, on March  29, 2025, the \ndismissal hearing notice sent by certified mail to the Claimant was delivered to her home address \nas listed above and left with an individual.  However, part of the signature of the recipient of said \nletter is illegible.  The first name is scribbled; but the last name is clearly written and discernible \nto be the Claimant’s last name.  About the letter sent by first-class mail, it has not been returned to \nthe Commission.   \nOn April 16, 2025, my office sent a Notice of Hearing to the parties scheduling this matter \nfor a dismissal hearing on May 28, 2025.   Said hearing notice was sent to the Claimant by both \nfirst-class and certified mail to the same address as before.   \nPer tracking information received from the United States Postal Service, on May 2, 2025, \nthey were unable to find any delivery information for the hearing notice sent to the Claimant via \ncertified  mail. However,  on  May  12,  2025,  the  Post  Office  returned  the  hearing  notice  to  the \nCommission, which was sent to the Claimant via certified mail because the item was “unclaimed.”    \nYet, the notice sent by first-class mail has not been returned to the Commission.  Thus, the evidence \npreponderates that reasonable notice of the dismissal hearing was made upon the Claimant.  \n\nTalley – H405444 \n \n \n4 \n \nTherefore, 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 November 2024.  Specifically, \nthe attorney for Respondents moved for dismissal without prejudice, under the authority of Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-702, and/or Commission Rule 099.13.   \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) provides:  \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 \nCommission Rule 099.13 provides:  \n \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\nTalley – H405444 \n \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 motion.  Moreover, since the \nfiling of the Form AR-C, which was done in August 2024, the Claimant has not made a bona fide \nrequest for a hearing with respect to his claim.  Considering all the foregoing, I am compelled to \nconclude that the Claimant has abandoned his claim for workers’ compensation benefits.   \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 of this Commission.  Said dismissal is without prejudice, to the refiling of this claim within \nthe 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 August 2024, the Claimant filed a Form AR-C with the Commission in \nthis matter asserting his entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits due \nto an alleged accidental injury occurring on August 8, 2024. \n \n\nTalley – H405444 \n \n \n6 \n \n3. Since the filing of the Form AR-C, more than six (6) months have passed, \nand the Claimant has not made a bona fide request for a hearing.    \n \n4. The Respondents filed with the Commission, a motion to dismiss this claim, \nfor 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 without prejudice, to the refiling of the claim within the specified limitation      \n 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 to the refiling of it within the specified limitation period.        \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n   \n                                  \n                                                                                     ________________________________ \n                                                                                     CHANDRA L. BLACK  \n                                                    Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H405444 LONDON M. TALLEY, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT TRUCKMAT CORPORATION, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INS. COMPANY, INSURANCE COMPANY RESPONDENT GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., THIRD PARTY ADMINISTATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JUNE 6, 2025 Hearing ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:39:34.802Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H405444-2025-06-06","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/TALLEY_LONDON_H405444_20250606.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}