{"id":"alj-H407255-2026-01-16","awcc_number":"H407255","decision_date":"2026-01-16","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Willie Nash","employer_name":"Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co","title":"NASH VS. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. AWCC# H407255 January 14, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:5","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["back","strain","lumbar"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/NASH_WILLIE_H407255_20260116.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"NASH_WILLIE_H407255_20260116.pdf","text_length":13099,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO.: H407255 \n \n \nWILLIE NASH, EMPLOYEE                                                                                     CLAIMANT \n \nGOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                           RESPONDENT                                                                                                       \n \nLIBERTY INSURANCE CORP., \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                      RESPONDENT                                                                      \n                                                                                                       \nOPINION FILED JANURARY 14, 2026   \n \nHearing held before ADMINSTRTATIVE JUDGE CHANDRA L.  BLACK, in Miller County, \nTexarkana, Arkansas. \n \nThe pro se Claimant failed to appear at the dismissal hearing.         \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE KAREN H. McKINNEY, Attorney at Law, Little \nRock, Arkansas. \n \n                                                         Statement of the Case      \n \n A hearing was held on January 14, 2026, in the above-referenced matter pursuant to Dillard \nv. Benton County Sheriff’s Office, 87 Ark. App. 379, 192 S.W. 3d 287 (2004), to determine whether \nthis case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute under the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. §11-\n9-702 (Repl.  2012), and Arkansas  Workers’ Compensation Commission  Rule  099.13 (now \ncodified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d)). \nAppropriate notice of this hearing was tried on all parties to their last known address, in \nthe manner instructed by law.   \nNo testimony was taken. \nThe record consists of the hearing transcript of January 1, 2026, and the documents held \ntherein.  Commission’s Exhibit 1 consisting of five pages, and one envelope for a total of (6) pages \nhas been marked accordingly, and Respondents introduced into evidence an exhibit consisting of \n\nNASH – H407255 \n \n2 \n \ntwenty-nine (29) pages,  which was thus marked Respondents’ Exhibit 1. Both  exhibits  were \nintroduced into evidence without objection.  \n                                                               Background \n The procedural history of this claim is as follows: \n This claim involves an alleged back injury on or about October 18, 2024.  The Claimant \nreported to management that he was placing a transport bar into a “full wind-up roll” that was on \na hoist, when one side fell from the hoist jarring him causing him to strain his back and right leg.  \n  On November 7,  2024,  the Respondents’ case manager filed  a  Form  AR-2,  with  the \nCommission accepting compensability of the claim for a compensable lower lumbar/back injury.  \nThe Respondents filed an amended Form AR-2 with the Commission on November 25, 2024, to \ncorrect the Claimant’s correct average weekly wage. Contrariwise, the Respondents filed another \nAmended Form AR-2 with the Commission on December 9, 2024, controverting the claim stating, \n“We have medical evidence of pre-existing DDD and disc protrusion at L4-5.”     \n As a result, the Claimant retained legal representation in this case. The Claimant’s attorney \nrequested a hearing on the merits of this claim.  As a result, the hearing process was started by my \noffice.  Counsel for the Claimant filed a response to the Prehearing Questionnaire on February 4, \n2025.   Per  the  aforementioned  responsive  filing,  the  Claimant  asserted  that  he  sustained  a \ncompensable  injury  for  which  he  was  entitled  to  medical  benefits,  temporary  total  disability \ncompensation and an attorney’s fee. The Respondents’ attorney filed a response on behalf of her \nclient on or about February 4, 2025, restating their position of controverting the claim. I conducted \na prehearing telephone conference with the parties on May 14, 2025.  At that time, I scheduled a \nfull hearing in this matter for July 8, 2025.  Ultimately, the Claimant’s attorney moved the hearing \nbe canceled and the claim was returned to the Commission’s general files, which was done.      \n\nNASH – H407255 \n \n3 \n \n Subsequently,  on  September  9,  2025,  the  Claimant  attorney  filed  a  motion  to  withdraw \nfrom representing the Claimant in this matter.  On October 1, 2025, the Full Commission granted \nthe Claimant’s attorney’s motion to withdraw as counsel of record in this case.    \n Subsequently, on February 20, 2025, the Claimant’s attorney filed a motion to withdraw \nfrom representing the Claimant this claim.  On March 20, 2025, the Full Commission entered an \norder granting the motion.    \n Since this time, the Claimant has not taken any action to pursue or otherwise resolve his \nclaim.  Most significantly, the Claimant has not requested a hearing subsequent to the last filing \nof a request for a hearing which was clearly done more than six (6) months ago. \nConsequently, it  appears  that  on  or  about  October  31,  2025, the Respondents  filed  a \nRespondents’ Motion to Dismiss with the Commission.  The Respondents notified the Claimant \nof said motion per a certificate of service sent via the United States Postal Service.      \nSubsequently, on July 15, 2025, my office sent a letter-notice informing the Claimant of \nthe Respondents’ motion to  dismiss,  and  a  deadline of  twenty (20) days  for  filing  a  written \nresponse.  This letter was sent via both first-class and certified mail.  The letter-notice sent by way \nof first-class mail has not been returned to the Commission.   \nSaid dismissal hearing  was  scheduled  for October  14,  2025,  at 9:30 a.m., in  Texarkana, \nArkansas.  This hearing notice was sent via first-class and certified mail. \nMy office mailed a notice to the Claimant notifying him of the Respondents’ motion for \ndismissal of this claim. On November 14, 2025, the Claimant picked up the notice from the Postal \nFacility. The return receipt request bears the Claimant’s signature. \nOn January 6, 2026, the Claimant’s called the Commission’s legal advisors’ team  to  let \nthem know that he does not wish to pursue his workers’ compensation claim.  The hearing notice \n\nNASH – H407255 \n \n4 \n \nwas sent to the Claimant via certified mail and first-class mail.  The notice sent by regular mail \nhas not been returned the Commission.  However, the notice sent to the Claimant via certified mail \nwas returned to Commission and it was mark unclaimed.  Under these circumstances, I find that \nthe Claimant received notice of the hearing as provided under the relevant law. \nOn January 25, 2026, my office sent a Notice of Hearing to the parties informing them that \nthis claim was scheduled for January 13, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., in Texarkana Arkansas.   \nA hearing was in fact conducted on the Respondents’ motion as scheduled.  The Claimant \ndid not appear for the hearing.  However, the Respondents appeared through their attorney.  The \nRespondents’ counsel argued, among other things, that the Claimant has failed to timely prosecute \nhis claim for workers’ compensation benefits.   Counsel  further  noted  that  the  Claimant  did  not \nappear at the hearing to object to his claim being dismissed, and he has indicated that he does not \nwish  to  pursue  his  claim.   As  such, Counsel moved that  this  claim  be  dismissed for  failure  to \nprosecute under Ark. Code  Ann. §11-9-702,  and Commission Rule  099.13 (now  codified  at  11 \nC.A.R. § 25-110 (d)), without prejudice. \n    Adjudication   \nTherefore, the statutory provision and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Rule applicable \nin the Respondents’ request for dismissal of this claim are outlined below:  \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 \nAlso, 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 \n\nNASH – H407255 \n \n5 \n \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 (now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110 (d), reads as follows: \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 \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 \n            Although the Claimant did not file a formal claim by way of a Form AR-C, the Claimant’s \nattorney filing of a written request for a hearing along with the filing of Claimant’s response to the \nPrehearing Questionnaire is sufficient to constitute the filing of a claim for workers’ compensation \nbenefits.  \n A review of the evidence shows that the Claimant has had ample time to pursue his claim \nfor workers’ compensation benefits, but he has failed to do so.  Specifically, the Claimant has not \nrequested a hearing or otherwise made any effort to prosecute his claim since the filing of his claim \nmore than  six  (6)  months ago; and  nor  has  he  resisted  the motion to  dismiss  his claim despite \nhaving  received  notice  of  the dismissal hearing. Thus, the  evidence  preponderates  that  the \nClaimant has clearly failed to prosecute this claim for workers’ compensation benefits.  For these \nreasons, and among other facts stated above, I am convinced that the Claimant has abandoned his \nclaim.   \n\nNASH – H407255 \n \n6 \n \nTherefore,  after  consideration  of  the  evidence before  me,  I  find that  the Respondents’ \nmotion to dismiss for a lack of prosecution to be well taken.  I thus find that pursuant to Ark. Code \nAnn.§11-9-702, and Commission Rule 099.13 (now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110 (d)), this claim \nfor  workers’ compensation benefits is  hereby  respectfully dismissed without  prejudice to  the \nrefiling of  it within  the limitation  period specified under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nAct (referred to herein as the “Act”). \n                           FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nBased  on the  record  as  a  whole,  I  hereby  make  the  following  findings  of  fact  and \nconclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this \nclaim. \n \n2. The Claimant’s attorney previously filed a claim asserting his entitlement \nto workers’ compensation benefits. Claimant has not requested a bona fide \nhearing in the last six (6) months, and he has notified the Commission that \nhe does not wish to pursue this claim for workers’ compensation benefits.  \n \n3. The Respondents filed with the Commission a motion for dismissal of this \nclaim, for which a hearing was held. \n \n4. Appropriate notice of the dismissal hearing was had on all parties to their \nlast known address, in the manner prescribed by law.    \n \n            5. The evidence  preponderates  that  the Respondents’ motion to dismiss this \nclaim for lack of prosecution is well founded, and should be hereby granted, \nwithout prejudice,  per  Ark.  Code  Ann. §11-9-702,  and  Commission  Rule \n099.13(now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110 (d)) to the refiling of it within \nthe limitation period specified by law.  \n             \nORDER \n \nBased  upon  the  foregoing findings, I  have  no  alternative  but  to  dismiss  this  claim  for \nworkers’ compensation benefits.  This dismissal is made pursuant to the provisions of Ark. Code  \n\nNASH – H407255 \n \n7 \n \nAnn. §11- 9-702, and Commission Rule 099.13(now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110 (d)), without \nprejudice to the refiling of this claim within the limitation period specified under the Act. \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n     \n                                   \n                                                             _____________________________ \n  CHANDRA L. BLACK  \n                                                     Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H407255 WILLIE NASH, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT LIBERTY INSURANCE CORP., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JANURARY 14, 2026 Hearing held before ADMINSTRTATIVE JUDGE CHANDRA L. BLACK, in Miller County, Texarkana, A...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:32:55.233Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H407255-2026-01-16","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/NASH_WILLIE_H407255_20260116.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}