{"id":"alj-H406233-2026-01-14","awcc_number":"H406233","decision_date":"2026-01-14","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Raymondo Garcia","employer_name":"Poinsett Rice & Grain, Inc","title":"GARCIA VS. POINSETT RICE & GRAIN, INC. AWCC# H406233 January 14, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:10","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Garcia_Raymondo_Gomez_H406233_20260114.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Garcia_Raymondo_Gomez_H406233_20260114.pdf","text_length":6597,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H406233 \n \nRAYMONDO GOMEZ GARCIA, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nPOINSETT RICE & GRAIN, INC., \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \nAGRI GROUP-COMP SI FUND, \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                    RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED JANUARY 14, 2026 \n \nHearing conducted on Friday, November 14, 2025, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission  (the  Commission),  Administrative  Law  Judge (ALJ) Steven  Porch,  in Jonesboro, \nCraighead County, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant is Pro Se, of Newport, 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 July 24, 2025.  A hearing on the motion was conducted on November 14, 2025, in Jonesboro, \nArkansas.  Claimant, according to Commission file is Pro Se, failed to appear at the hearing.  \nThe Claimant worked for the Respondent/Employer as a laborer. The date for Claimant’s \nalleged injury was on September 16, 2024. This incident was reported to the Respondent/Employer \non the   same   day. Admitted   into   evidence   was Respondents’  Exhibit 1,   pleadings,   and \ncorrespondence, consisting of 27 pages, and Commission Ex. 1, pleadings, correspondence, and \nU.S. Mail return receipts, consisting of 8 pages, as discussed infra. \n\nGARCIA, AWCC No. H406233 \n \n2 \n \nThe  record  reflects  on September 25, 2024,  a  Form  AR-1  purporting  that Claimant  was \nunloading a grain bin when his left hand became trapped and then broken inside an auger. Also on \nSeptember  25,  2024,  a  Form  AR-2  was  filed  denying  compensability  based  on  a  positive  post-\naccident  drug  screening.  On  November  19,  2024,  a  Form  AR-C  was  filed by  Claimants  then-\nattorney, Mark Peoples, purporting that Claimant sustained injuries to his left hand and fingers. \nOn January 21, 2025, Claimant’s then-attorney filed a motion to withdraw as Claimant’s attorney. \nThe Full Commission granted Mr. People’s motion on February 5, 2025. On February 14, 2025, \nRespondents  filed  a  motion  to  dismiss  due  to  a  lack  of  prosecution,  specifically  not  complying \nwith  discovery. On  March  17,  2025,  Claimant  objected  to  the  dismissal  of  his  claim  and  the \ndismissal  motion  was  held  in  abeyance. On  March  21,  2025,  prehearing  questionnaires  and \npreliminary notices were sent out to the parties. Eventually a prehearing telephone conference was \nscheduled for June 10, 2025, and the Claimant did not make himself available for the pre-scheduled \nhearing. The file was sent to general files.  \nRespondents renewed their Motion to Dismiss due to Claimant’s failure to prosecute his \nclaim on July 24, 2025. The Claimant was sent, on August 5, 2025, notice of the Motion to Dismiss, \nvia certified  and  regular  U.S.  Mail,  to  his last  known  address.  The  certified motion notice  was \nclaimed  by  Claimant as  noted on  the August 8,  2025,  return  receipt. This  notice was  also  sent \nregular U.S. Mail and did not return to the Commission. Despite this, the Claimant did not respond \nto  the  Motion,  in  writing,  as  required. Thus,  in  accordance  with  applicable  Arkansas  law,  the \nClaimant was mailed due and proper legal notice of Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss hearing date \nat her current address of record via the United States Postal Service (USPS), First Class Certified \nMail,  Return  Receipt  Requested,  and  regular  First-Class  Mail,  on September 10,  2025.  The \ncertified notice was claimed as noted by the September 22, 2025, return receipt. The hearing notice \n\nGARCIA, AWCC No. H406233 \n \n3 \n \nsent regular First-Class was not returned to the Commission. The hearing took place on November \n14, 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):  \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The  Claimant  and  Respondents  both  had  reasonable  notice  of  the November  14, \n2025, hearing. \n \n3. Respondents have proven by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has \nfailed to prosecute his 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 \n\nGARCIA, AWCC No. H406233 \n \n4 \n \nnotice was claimed by Claimant, per the return postal notice bearing the September 22, 2025, date. \nThus, I find by the preponderance 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 his Form \nAR-C  on November  19,  2024.  Since  then,  he  has  failed  to participate  in  Prehearing  Telephone \nConference or appear at this Hearing.  Therefore, I do find by the preponderance of the evidence \nthat Claimant has failed to prosecute his claim. Thus, Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be \ngranted. \n \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      STEVEN PORCH \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H406233 RAYMONDO GOMEZ GARCIA, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT POINSETT RICE & GRAIN, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT AGRI GROUP-COMP SI FUND, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JANUARY 14, 2026 Hearing conducted on Friday, November 14, 2025, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compe...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:32:53.071Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H406233-2026-01-14","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Garcia_Raymondo_Gomez_H406233_20260114.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}