{"id":"alj-H407806-2025-11-20","awcc_number":"H407806","decision_date":"2025-11-20","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Freddy Washington","employer_name":"Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company","title":"WASHINGTON VS. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY AWCC# H407806 November 20, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:6","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WASHINGTON_FREDDY_H407806_20251120.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"WASHINGTON_FREDDY_H407806_20251120.pdf","text_length":11583,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n  \n                                                        CLAIM NO.: H407806 \n \nFREDDY E. WASHINGTON,   \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                CLAIMANT                                                    \n \nGOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT                                                                                                  \n \nLIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE  \nCOMPANY, CARRIER/TPA                                                                                 RESPONDENT  \n                                                                                                   \n \n                                            OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 20, 2025    \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Texarkana, Miller County, \nArkansas. \n  \nClaimant, pro se, failed to appear at the hearing. \n \nRespondents represented  by the  Honorable Karen  H.  McKinney, Attorney  at  Law, Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n                                                   STATEMENT OF THE CASE      \n \n This  matter  comes  before  the  Commission following a motion  to dismiss filed by the \nrespondents.    A  hearing  on  the  motion  was  conducted  on November  18,  2025,  in Texarkana, \nArkansas.  Presently the sole issue for determination before the Commission is whether this claim \nshould be dismissed due to the Claimant’s failure to prosecute it under Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702 \n(Repl. 2012), and/or Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Rule 099.13 (now codified at \n11 C.A.R. § 25-110 (d)). \n             The  record  consists of the November  18,  2025,  hearing transcript and documentary \nevidence.  In that regard, Commission’s Exhibit 1 encompassing five (5) actual pages, as it has \nwhich has been marked accordingly, and Respondents’ Exhibit 1 consisting of nine (9) numbered \npages was thus designated.   \n\nWashington – H407806 \n \n \n2 \n \n Reasonable notice of the dismissal hearing was tried on all the parties in the manner  \nestablished by applicable law.   \nNo testimony was taken at the hearing.  \n                        Background \nThe record reflects the following procedural history: \n On March 17, 2025, the claimant’s then attorney of record in this matter filed a Form AR-\nC, with the Commission, wherein he alleged that the claimant sustained an accidental injury, on \nNovember 23, 2024, while working  for  the respondent-employer.  According  to  this document, \nthe claimant alleged that he sustained compensable injuries to his head and back.  On this form, \nthe claimant requested initial benefits in  the  form  of every  benefit allowed under  law for  this \ncategory of benefits.    \nThe respondents filed an initial Form AR-2, with the Commission on November 26, 2024.  \nAt this time, respondents accepted this case as a compensable claim.  The Respondents filed with \nthe Commission, an amended AR-2 on December 9, 2024, making adjustments to the claimant’s \naverage weekly wage.   \n Subsequently, the claimant retained legal counsel to represent him in this matter.  On the \nclaimant’s attorney filed  a  letter with  the  Commission asking  that  he  be removed as counsel  of \nrecord for the claimant in this matter.  There was no objection to the claimant’s attorney’s motion \nto withdraw from representing the claimant in this case.  Therefore, the Full Commission entered \nan order on April 23, 2025, granting the claimant’s attorney motion to withdraw from representing \nhim in this matter.   \nSince the filing of the Form AR-C, the Claimant has failed to prosecute or otherwise pursue \nhis claim for workers’ compensation benefits.  Specifically, it has been more than six (6) months \n\nWashington – H407806 \n \n \n3 \n \nsince the filing of the Form AR-C; but thus far, the claimant has made no bona fide request for a \nhearing with respect to his claim.   \nAs  a  result,  on October  9,  2025,  the  respondents’ attorney filed  with  the Commission a \nRespondents’ Motion to Dismiss this claim due to a lack of prosecution of it by the claimant.   \nSubsequently, on October 13, 2025, my office wrote to the claimant and requested a written \nresponse to the motion within twenty (20) days.  Said letter was mailed to the claimant by both \nfirst-class and certified mail to the address listed by the claimant with the Commission.   \nPer  tracking  information  received  from  the United  States Postal  Service, the  dismissal \nhearing notice sent by certified mail to the claimant was delivered to his home address listed above \nand left with an individual.  The signature of the recipient of said letter is illegible.  However, the \nletter sent by first-class mail has not been returned to the Commission.   \nOn November 4, 2025, my office sent a Notice of Hearing to the parties scheduling this \nmatter for a dismissal hearing on November 18, 2025, at the Commission.   Said hearing notice \nwas sent to the claimant by both first-class and certified mail to the same address as before.   \nThe Postal Service returned the notice of hearing to Commission on November 6, 2025, \nwhich was mailed to the claimant via certified mail.  However, the notice sent by first-class mail \nhas not been returned to the Commission.  Thus, the above evidence preponderates that reasonable \nnotice of the dismissal hearing was made upon the claimant as required under law.  \n Therefore, the dismissal hearing was conducted on the respondents’ motion to dismiss this \nclaim as formerly scheduled.  Despite having received notice of the dismissal hearing, the claimant \ndid  not appear  at  the  hearing.  However,  the respondents  appeared at  the  hearing through their \nlawyer.  The respondent’s counsel argued, among other things, for dismissal of this claim because \nthe claimant  has made  no bona fide  request for  a hearing or taken  any action to prosecute or \n\nWashington – H407806 \n \n \n4 \n \notherwise resolve his claim since the filing of the Form AR-C in March 2025.  Specifically, the \nattorney for respondents moved for dismissal without prejudice, under the authority of Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-702, and/or Commission Rule 099.13 (now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d)). \n            Adjudication  \nThe statutory  provisions and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Rule applicable to the \nrespondents’ motion for dismissal of this claim for workers’ compensation benefits are outlined \nbelow:  \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 \nAdditionally, Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702(d) states:  \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 \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 \n Commission Rule 099.13 (now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d)), states: \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\nWashington – H407806 \n \n \n5 \n \nThe evidence shows that the claimant has failed to respond to the written notices of this \nCommission, and he did not appear at the hearing to object to the dismissal motion.  Moreover, \nsince the filing of the Form AR-C, which was done in March 2025, the claimant has not made a \nbona  fide  request  for  a  hearing  with  respect  to his claim.    Considering  all  the  foregoing,  I  am \ncompelled  to  conclude  that  the claimant  has  abandoned  his claim for workers’ compensation \nbenefits.   \nAccordingly,  based  on my  review  of  the documentary  evidence,  and  all  other  matters \nproperly  before  the  Commission,  I  find  that  the respondents’ motion  to dismiss  this  claim is \nwarranted  under  the  provisions  of Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-702 (a)(4), §11-9-702 (d),  and Rule \n099.13 (now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d)), of this Commission.  Said dismissal is without \nprejudice, to the refiling of this claim within the limitation period specified by law.   \n                           FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nBased on the record, I hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law \nin accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this \nclaim. \n \n2. In March  2025,  the claimant’s  attorney filed  a Form  AR-C with  the \nCommission in   this   matter   asserting   his entitlement to workers’ \ncompensation  benefits  due  to  an alleged accidental  injury occurring  on \nNovember 23, 2024. \n  \n 3.         Since the filing of the Form AR-C, more than six (6) months have passed,  \n  and the claimant has not made a bona fide request for a hearing.    \n \n 4. The respondents filed with the Commission a motion to dismiss this claim,  \n                        for which a hearing was held. \n \n5.         Reasonable notice of the motion to dismiss and hearing was had on all the \nparties.  \n \n\nWashington – H407806 \n \n \n6 \n \n6.         The evidence preponderates that the respondents’ motion to dismiss this  \n            claim for want of prosecution is warranted.   \n \n7.         That the respondents’ motion to dismiss is hereby granted pursuant to Ark.  \n Code Ann. §11-9-702 (a)(4), §11-9-702 (d), and Commission Rule 099.13,      \n(now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d)), without prejudice, to the refiling   \nof the claim within the specified limitation  period.   \n \nORDER \nIn  accordance  with  the  foregoing  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law,  this  claim is \nhereby dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702 and Commission Rule \n099.13 (now  codified  at  11 C.A.R.  §  25-110(d)), to  the  refiling  within  the  specified  limitation \nperiod.        \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n   \n                                  \n                                                                                     ________________________________ \n                                                                                     CHANDRA L. BLACK  \n                                                    Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H407806 FREDDY E. WASHINGTON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 20, 2025 Hearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in T...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:34:46.109Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H407806-2025-11-20","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WASHINGTON_FREDDY_H407806_20251120.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}