{"id":"alj-H406856-2025-09-22","awcc_number":"H406856","decision_date":"2025-09-22","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Artem Kutsenkov","employer_name":"Custom Aircraft Cabinets Inc","title":"KUTSENKOV VS. CUSTOM AIRCRAFT CABINETS INC. AWCC# H406856 September 22, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:9","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Kutsenkov_Artem_H406856_20250922.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Kutsenkov_Artem_H406856_20250922.pdf","text_length":6110,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H406856 \n \nARTEM KUTSENKOV, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nCUSTOM AIRCRAFT CABINETS INC., \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \nBRIDGEFIELD EMPLOYERS INS. CO., \nCARRIER                                                                                                             RESPONDENT \n \nSUMMIT CONSULTING, LLC., \nTPA                                                                                                                        RESPONDENT \n \n \n \nOPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 22, 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, Mr. Artem Kutsenkov, Pro Se, of Searcy, 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  9,  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 paint  technician.  The  date  for \nClaimant’s alleged injury was on April 24, 2024. He reported his injury to Respondent/Employer \non the  same  day  as  the  incident. Respondents  admitted into  the  record Respondents’ Exhibit 1, \npleadings, and correspondence, consisting of 8 pages. The Commission has admitted into evidence \n\nKUTSENKOV, AWCC No. H406856 \n \n2 \n \nCommission  Ex. 1, correspondence,  and  U.S.  Mail  return  receipts,  consisting  of 7 pages, as \ndiscussed infra. \nThe record reflects on October 18, 2024, a Form AR-C was filed with the Commission by \nClaimant purporting that Claimant sustained work-related injuries to his hands. On October 25, \n2024, a Form AR-1 was filed with the Commission noting that Claimant had a rash on both of his \nhands. On October  25,  2024,  and  again  on November 1,  2024, a Form  AR-2  was  filed by \nRespondents denying compensability.  \nOn June  9,  2025, Respondents filed  a  Motion  to  Dismiss due  to Claimant’s failure to \nprosecute his claim. The Claimant was sent, on June 13, 2025, notice of the Motion to Dismiss, \nvia certified and regular U.S. Mail, to his last known address. The certified motion notice was not \nclaimed by Claimant as noted on the July 1, 2025, return receipt. This notice sent regular U.S. Mail \ndid  not  return  to  the  Commission. The  Claimant  did not respond  to  the  Motion,  in  writing,  as \nrequired. Thus,  in  accordance  with  applicable  Arkansas  law,  the  Claimant  was  mailed  due  and \nproper legal notice of Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss hearing date at his current address of record \nvia the United States Postal Service (USPS), First Class Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, \nand regular First-Class Mail, on July 10, 2025. The certified notice was not claimed as noted by \nthe July 25, 2025, return receipt. The hearing notice sent regular First-Class was not returned to \nthe  Commission. The  hearing  took  place  on August  26,  2025.  And  as  mentioned  before,  the \nClaimant 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\nKUTSENKOV, AWCC No. H406856 \n \n3 \n \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The Claimant and Respondents both had reasonable notice of the August 26, 2025, \nhearing. \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, the Commission scheduled and conducted a hearing, \nwith reasonable notice, on the Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss. The certified hearing notice was \nnot claimed by Claimant, per the return postal notice bearing the July 25, 2025, date. However, \nthe hearing notice sent regular First-Class mail was not returned to the Commission. The Claimant \nis responsible for updating his address with the Commission. Thus, I find by the preponderance of \nthe evidence that reasonable notice was given to the Claimant.  \nFurthermore, 11 C.A.R. §25-110 allows the Commission, upon meritorious application, to \ndismiss an action pending before it due to a want of prosecution. The Claimant filed his Form AR-\nC on October 18, 2024. Since then, he has failed to request a bona fide hearing. Therefore, I do \n\nKUTSENKOV, AWCC No. H406856 \n \n4 \n \nfind by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has failed to prosecute his claim by failing \nto request a hearing. Thus, Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \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. H406856 ARTEM KUTSENKOV, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CUSTOM AIRCRAFT CABINETS INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT BRIDGEFIELD EMPLOYERS INS. CO., CARRIER RESPONDENT SUMMIT CONSULTING, LLC., TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 Hearing conducted on Tuesday, August 26, ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:36:36.947Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H406856-2025-09-22","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Kutsenkov_Artem_H406856_20250922.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}