{"id":"alj-H407791-2025-09-12","awcc_number":"H407791","decision_date":"2025-09-12","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Reggie Tucker","employer_name":"Georgia Pacific, LLC","title":"TUCKER VS. GEORGIA PACIFIC, LLC AWCC# H407791 September 12, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/TUCKER_REGGIE_H407791_20250912.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"TUCKER_REGGIE_H407791_20250912.pdf","text_length":5205,"full_text":"1 \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H407791 \n \n \nREGGIE TUCKER, \nEMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nGEORGIA PACIFIC, LLC, \nEMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nOLD REPUBLIC INS. CO./ \nESIS, INC. \nCARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT \n \n \n \nOPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 12, 2025, \nGRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE \n \n \nHearing conducted on Thursday, September 11, 2025, before the Arkansas Workers’ \nCompensation Commission (the Commission), Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mike Pickens, in \nEl Dorado, Union County, Arkansas. \n \nThe claimant, Reggie Tucker, pro se, failed and/or refused to appear at the hearing. \n \nThe respondents were represented by the Honorable Rick Behring, Jr., Newkirk & Jones, Little \nRock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \n \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A hearing was conducted on Thursday, September 11, 2025, to determine whether this claim \nshould be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(a)(4) (2025 Lexis \nReplacement) and 11 C.A.R. Section 25-110(d) (Code of AR Regulations 2025) (formerly cited \nas Commission Rule 099.13 (2025 Lexis Replacement)). \n The respondents filed a motion to dismiss this claim without prejudice for lack of prosecution \nand brief in support thereof (MTD) on June 9, 2025. (Respondents’ Exhibit 1 at 4-7). In accordance \nwith the applicable law the claimant was provided due and legal notice of both the respondents’ \n\nReggie Tucker, AWCC No. H407791 \n2 \n \nMTD as well as the date, time, and place of the MTD hearing on two (2) separate occasions which \nhe received on June 14, 2025, and July 14, 2025. (Commission Exhibits 1 & 2). Thereafter, the \nclaimant failed and/or refused to respond to the respondents’ motion in any way, or to appear at \nthe subject hearing. \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) (2025 Lexis Replacement), as well as our \ncourt of appeals’ ruling in Dillard vs. Benton County Sheriff’s Office, 87 Ark. App. 379, 192 \nS.W.3d 287 (Ark. App. 2004), the Commission scheduled and conducted a hearing on the \nrespondents’ MTD. Rather than recite a detailed analysis of the record, suffice it to say the \npreponderance of the evidence introduced at the hearing and contained in the record conclusively \nreveals the claimant has failed and/or refused to either actively prosecute his claim, or to request a \nhearing within the last six (6) months. \n Therefore, after a thorough consideration of the issues at bar, the applicable law as applied to \nthe facts of this claim, and other relevant matters of record including the representations of credible \ncounsel, I hereby make the following: \n \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. \n \n2. After having received due and legal notice of both the respondents’ MTD without prejudice \nfiled with the Commission on June 9, 2025, as well as due and legal notice of the date, \ntime, and place of the subject hearing, the claimant failed and/or refused to respond to the \nMTD in any way and failed and/or refused to appear at the subject hearing. \n \n3. The claimant has not requested a hearing within the last six (6) months and has taken no \naction(s) to raise any issues related to or to prosecute this claim. \n\nReggie Tucker, AWCC No. H407791 \n3 \n \n \n4. Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence compels the decision the respondents’ MTD \nwithout prejudice filed June 9, 2025, should be and hereby is GRANTED; and this claim \nis dismissed without prejudice to its refiling pursuant to the deadlines prescribed by Ark. \nCode Ann. Section 11-9-702(a) and (b) and 11 C.A.R. 25-110(d) (formerly cited as \nCommission Rule 099.13). \n \n If they have not already done so, the respondents hereby are ordered to pay the court \nreporter’s invoice within twenty (20) days of their receipt thereof. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n ____________________________ \n Mike Pickens \n Administrative Law Judge \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMP/mp \n \n \n\nReggie Tucker, AWCC No. H407791 \n4","preview":"1 BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H407791 REGGIE TUCKER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT GEORGIA PACIFIC, LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT OLD REPUBLIC INS. CO./ ESIS, INC. CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 12, 2025, GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:36:20.306Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H407791-2025-09-12","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/TUCKER_REGGIE_H407791_20250912.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}