{"id":"alj-H406828-2024-12-05","awcc_number":"H406828","decision_date":"2024-12-05","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Donald Taft","employer_name":"10 Roads Express, LLC","title":"TAFT VS. 10 ROADS EXPRESS, LLC AWCC# H406828 December 05, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:2","granted:2"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/TAFT_DONALD_H406828_20241205.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"TAFT_DONALD_H406828_20241205.pdf","text_length":6518,"full_text":"1 \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H406828 \n \n \nDONALD L. TAFT,  \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \n10 ROADS EXPRESS, LLC, \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \nINDEMNITY INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA/ \nGALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                    RESPONDENT \n                                                                                                                                     \n \nOPINION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE \nFILED DECEMBER 5, 2024 \n \nHearing conducted on Wednesday,   December   4, 2024, before  the  Arkansas  Workers’ \nCompensation Commission (the Commission), Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mike Pickens, in \nLittle Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nThe claimant’s attorney, the Honorable Mark Alan Peoples, the Peoples Law Firm, Little Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas, waived appearance at the hearing.  \n \nThe respondents were represented by the Honorable Rick Behring, Jr., Newkirk & Jones, Little \nRock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n        A hearing was conducted on Wednesday, December 4, 2024, to determine whether this claim \nshould  be  dismissed  for  lack  of  prosecution  pursuant  to Commission Rule  099.13  (2024 Lexis \nReplacement). \n       The  claimant herein is represented  by  counsel, the  Honorable Mark  Alan  Peoples. On \nNovember  18,  2022,  the  respondents  filed  a  motion  and  incorporated  brief  in  support  thereof \nrequesting this claim be dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution (MTD). In compliance \nwith the applicable law both the claimant and his attorney of record, Mr. Peoples, were provided \ndue and legal notice of the respondents’ MTD as well as the date, time, and location of the subject \n\nDonald L. Taft, AWCC No. H406828 \n2 \n \nhearing. Immediately thereafter, by email dated November 19, 2024, the claimant’s attorney \nresponded to the MTD as follows: “Claimant does not oppose dismissal, provided it is w/o \nprejudice. We will ask to be excused from any hearing on this Motion.” (Commission Exhibit 1). \nThe  ALJ  granted  Mr.  Peoples’s  request  to  be  excused  from  attending  the  subject  hearing. \n(Comms’n Ex. 2). Consequently, the claimant’s attorney is deemed to have waived appearance at \nthe hearing on the claimant’s behalf.  \n         Although the claimant works for the respondent-employer, 10 Roads Express, LLC, which \nhas  an  operation  in  North  Little  Rock,  Arkansas, he  is  a  resident  of  Florida and was  injured  in \nGeorgia. Consequently, the claimant had a choice of law concerning the jurisdiction in which he \nchose to file his workers’ compensation claim. It appears he chose to file his claim in Florida and \nto apply for and to receive benefits pursuant to Florida law. The respondents accepted his injury \nas compensable and paid medical and indemnity benefits based on Florida law; however, for some \nreason a Form AR-C was filed on the claimant’s behalf in Arkansas. (Respondents’ Exhibit 1). \n        The record herein consists of the hearing transcript and any and all exhibits contained therein \nand attached thereto. \nDISCUSSION \n        Consistent with Ark. Code Ann.§ 11-9-702(a)(4) (2024 Lexis Repl.), as well as our court of \nappeals’ ruling in Dillard vs. Benton County Sheriff’s Office, 87 Ark. App. 379, 192 S.W.3d 287 \n(Ark. App. 2004), the Commission scheduled and conducted a hearing on the respondents’ motion \nto dismiss. Rather than recite a detailed analysis of the record, suffice it to say the preponderance \nof  the  evidence  introduced  at  the  hearing and  contained  in  the  record conclusively  reveals  the \nclaimant has chosen not to actively prosecute his claim at this time. \n\nDonald L. Taft, AWCC No. H406828 \n3 \n \n        Therefore,  after  a thorough  consideration  of  the  facts,  issues,  the applicable  law, the \nrepresentations  of credible counsel, and  other relevant matters  of  record,  I  hereby  make  the \nfollowing: \n \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. \n \n2. After having been mailed due and legal notice of the respondents’ MTD without prejudice \nand  incorporated  brief  in  support  thereof filed with  the  Commission  on November  18, \n2024,  as  well  as notice  of the date, time,  and  place of  the  subject  hearing, the  claimant \nthrough his attorney advised he had no objection to the dismissal provided the dismissal \nwas in fact without prejudice, and he requested to be excused from attending the subject \nhearing, which request the ALJ granted. \n \n3. The claimant is a  Florida resident,  and his work-related injury occurred in Georgia. The \nclaimant chose to apply for and to receive workers’ compensation benefits pursuant to \nFlorida law. The respondents accepted the claimant’s injury as compensable and have paid \nmedical and indemnity benefits in accordance with Florida law. To date the claimant has \nchosen not to prosecute a workers compensation claim in Arkansas. \n \n4. Therefore, the respondents’ MTD without prejudice filed November 18, 2024, should be \nand  hereby is GRANTED;  and  this  claim is  dismissed  without  prejudice  to  its  refiling \npursuant to the deadlines prescribed by Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-9-702(a) and (b), and \nCommission Rule 099.13. \n \n        This Order shall not be construed to prohibit the claimant, his attorney, any attorney he may \nretain in the future, or anyone acting legally and on his behalf from refiling the claim if it is refiled \nwithin the applicable time periods prescribed by Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(a) and (b). \n        If they have not already done so, the respondents hereby are ordered to pay the court reporter’s \ninvoice within twenty (20) days of their receipt thereof. \n        IT IS SO ORDERED. \n                                                            \n____________________________                                                                                      \n                                                                        Mike Pickens \n                                                                          Administrative Law Judge \nMP/mp \n\nDonald L. Taft, AWCC No. H406828 \n4 \n \n \n \nMP/mp \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMP/mp","preview":"1 BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H406828 DONALD L. TAFT, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT 10 ROADS EXPRESS, LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT INDEMNITY INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA/ GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE FILED DECEMBER 5, 2024","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:45:14.319Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H406828-2024-12-05","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/TAFT_DONALD_H406828_20241205.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}