{"id":"alj-H405677-2025-09-30","awcc_number":"H405677","decision_date":"2025-09-30","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Keisha Martin","employer_name":"Double H Burger Co LLC","title":"MARTIN VS. DOUBLE H BURGER CO LLC. AWCC# H405677 September 30, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:9","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["back","knee"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Martin_Keisha_H405677_20250930.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Martin_Keisha_H405677_20250930.pdf","text_length":6347,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H405677 \n \nKEISHA MARTIN, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nDOUBLE H BURGER CO LLC., \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \nBRIDGEFIELD EMPLOYERS INS. CO., \nCARRIER                                                                                                             RESPONDENT \n \nBRIDGEFIELD EMPLOYERS INS. CO., \nTPA                                                                                                                        RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 30, 2025 \n \nHearing conducted on Tuesday, August  26, 2025,  before  the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission  (the  Commission),  Administrative  Law  Judge (ALJ) Steven  Porch,  in Little  Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant, Ms. Keisha Martin, Pro Se, of Pine Bluff, Arkansas.  \n \nThe Respondents  were represented by Mr. Guy  Alton  Wade,  Attorney  at  Law, Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This matter comes before the Commission on a Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondents \non June 13, 2025.  A hearing on the motion was conducted on August 26, 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 manager. The date for Claimant’s \nalleged injury was on May 28, 2024. She reported her injury to Respondent/Employer on the same \nday. Respondents admitted into the record Respondents’ Exhibit 1, pleadings, and correspondence, \nconsisting of 11 pages. The Commission has admitted into evidence Commission Ex. 1, pleadings, \ncorrespondence, and U.S. Mail return receipts, consisting of 10 pages, as discussed infra. \n\nMARTIN, AWCC No. H405677 \n \n2 \n \nThe record reflects on September 3, 2024, a Form AR-1 was filed with the Commission \npurporting that Claimant slipped and fell and sustained injuries to his lower back and left knee. On \nSeptember  3,  2024,  a  Form  AR-2 was  filed by  Respondents neither  accepting  nor  denying \ncompensability. On  November  21, 2024,  a  Form  AR-C was filed by Claimant’s then-counsel, \nMark  Peoples,  purporting  that  Claimant  sustained  work-related  injury  to  her left  knee.  On \nDecember 2, 2024, Respondents filed a letter with the commission accepting compensability. On \nApril  25,  2025, Claimant’s  then-counsel filed  a  motion  to  withdraw  as  counsel. The  Full \nCommission granted the motion on May 16, 2025.  \nOn June  13,  2025, Respondents’ counsel filed  a  Motion  to  Dismiss due  to Claimant’s \nfailure to prosecute her claim. The Claimant was sent, on June 19, 2025, notice of the Motion to \nDismiss, via certified and regular U.S. Mail, to her last known address. The certified motion notice \nwas claimed  by  Claimant as  noted on  the June 23,  2025,  return  receipt. The  Claimant  did not \nrespond to the Motion, in writing, as required. Thus, in accordance with applicable Arkansas law, \nthe Claimant was mailed due and proper legal notice of Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss hearing \ndate  at  her current  address  of  record  via  the  United  States  Postal  Service  (USPS),  First  Class \nCertified  Mail,  Return  Receipt  Requested,  and  regular  First-Class  Mail,  on July  16,  2025.  The \ncertified notice was not claimed as noted by the July 31, 2025, return receipt. The hearing notice \nsent regular First-Class was not returned to the Commission. The hearing took place on August \n26, 2025. And as mentioned before, the Claimant did not show up to the hearing. \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):  \n\nMARTIN, AWCC No. H405677 \n \n3 \n \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The  Claimant  and  Respondents  both  had  reasonable  notice  of  the July 30,  2025, \nhearing. \n \n3. Respondents have proven by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has \nfailed to prosecute her 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 not claimed by Claimant, per the return postal notice bearing the July 31, 2025, date. \nHowever,  the  hearing  notice  sent  regular  First-Class  mail  was  not  returned  to  the  Commission. \nThe  Claimant  is  responsible  for  updating  her address  with  the  Commission. Thus,  I  find  by  the \npreponderance of the evidence that reasonable notice was given to the Claimant.  \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 her Form \nAR-C on November 21, 2024. Since then, she has failed to request a bona fide hearing. Therefore, \n\nMARTIN, AWCC No. H405677 \n \n4 \n \nI do find by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has failed to prosecute her claim by \nfailing to request a hearing. Thus, Respondents’ 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      ________________________________________ \n      STEVEN PORCH \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H405677 KEISHA MARTIN, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT DOUBLE H BURGER CO LLC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT BRIDGEFIELD EMPLOYERS INS. CO., CARRIER RESPONDENT BRIDGEFIELD EMPLOYERS INS. CO., TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 30, 2025 Hearing conducted on Tuesday, August 26, 2...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:36:55.683Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H405677-2025-09-30","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Martin_Keisha_H405677_20250930.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}