{"id":"alj-H407977-2025-09-18","awcc_number":"H407977","decision_date":"2025-09-18","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Garrison Canales","employer_name":"Patriot Tire & Oil, LLC","title":"CANALES VS. PATRIOT TIRE & OIL, LLC AWCC# H407977 September 18, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:4","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/CANALES_GARRISON_H407977_20250918.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"CANALES_GARRISON_H407977_20250918.pdf","text_length":10364,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO.: H407977 \n \n \nGARRISON CANALES, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                 CLAIMANT \n \nPATRIOT TIRE & OIL, LLC,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT                                                                                                       \n \nTECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY, \nAMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA                                                                               RESPONDENT                                                                      \n          \n                                                                                              \nOPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 18, 2025   \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Hot Springs, Garland County, \nArkansas. \n \nThe Claimant, pro se, failed to appear at the dismissal hearing.         \n \nRespondents represented  by the Honorable Jacob  Denson, Attorney  at  Law, North Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n                                                         Statement of the Case      \n \n A hearing was held on August 29, 2025, 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 prescribed by law.   \nNo testimony was taken. \nThe record consists of the transcript of August 29, 2025, hearing and the documents held \ntherein.  Commission’s Exhibit 1 consists of eight (8) pages, which has been marked accordingly, \n\nCANALES – H407977 \n \n2 \n \nand the Respondents offered into evidence an exhibit consisting of one (1) numbered page, and it \nwas thus marked Respondents’ Exhibit 1.  \n                                                                Background \n The procedural history of this claim is as follows:  \n The Claimant filed a Form AR-C with the Commission on December 10, 2024, alleging \nthat he sustained a compensable injury on November 26, 2024, while working for the respondent-\nemployer.  Per this document, the Claimant was allegedly injured while swinging a hammer and \nhit himself in the shin.   The claim information section of the Form AR-C shows that the Claimant \nrequested  only additional workers’ compensation benefits.    These  benefits  included  a  claim  for \nadditional medical expenses, and other benefits of loss of income.  \n  The Respondents’ claims adjuster filed a Form AR-2, with the Commission on December \n13, 2024, accepting the claim pending further investigation. The adjuster filed an amended Form \nAR-2, with the Commission on March 4, 2025, controverting the claim. \n Subsequently,  there was no  action whatsoever taken on  the  part  of  the  Claimant  to \nprosecute his claim or otherwise pursue settlement of it or even resolve it.  \nTherefore, on or about June 30, 2025, the Respondents filed a letter motion to dismiss for \na lack of prosecution, with the Commission.  The Respondents notified the Claimant of said motion \nby sending a copy of it via the United States Postal Service.      \nSubsequently, on July 1, 2025, my office sent a letter-notice informing the Claimant of the \nRespondents’ motion to dismiss, and a deadline of twenty (20) days for filing a written response.  \nThis  letter  was  sent  via  first-class  and  certified  mail.   Information  received  by  the  Commission \nfrom  the  United  States  Postal  Service confirms that  they  were  able  to  deliver  this  item to  the \n\nCANALES – H407977 \n \n3 \n \nClaimant’s home on July 3.  However, the notice sent by first-class mail has not been returned to \nthe Commission.   \n Per a Hearing Notice generated on July 23, 2025, my office notified the parties that this \nclaim had been set for a hearing on the Respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Said dismissal hearing \nwas scheduled for August 29, at 9:30 a.m., at the Transportation Depot, in Hot Springs, Arkansas.  \nThis hearing notice was sent via first-class mail and certified mail. \nInformation received from the Postal Service shows that this item was also “undeliverable” \nand went “unclaimed.” Said notice was returned to the Commission on August 19, 2025.  Yet the \nnotice sent via first-class mail has not been returned to the Commission.  Based on the foregoing, \nthe evidence preponderates that the Claimant received notice of the dismissal hearing.     \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.  Their   \ncounsel essentially argued that the Claimant has failed to timely prosecute his claim for workers’ \ncompensation benefits.  As such, the Respondents moved that this claim be dismissed for failure \nto prosecute under Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702, and Commission Rule 099.13 (now codified at 11 \nC.A.R. § 25-110(d)). \nAdjudication   \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) states:  \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 limitation periods specified in subdivisions (a)(1)-(3) of this section. \n \n Additionally, Commission Rule 099.13 (now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d)) \n\nCANALES – H407977 \n \n4 \n \n reads:  \n \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            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 the Form \nAR-C more than six (6) months ago; nor has he resisted the motion to dismiss his claim despite \nhaving received notice of the dismissal hearing.   \nHere,  the  evidence  preponderates  that  the  Claimant  has clearly failed  to  prosecute  this \nclaim for workers’ compensation benefits.  Furthermore,  I  am  convinced  that  the  Claimant  has \nabandoned his claim.   \n Therefore,  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 (the “Act”). \n\nCANALES – H407977 \n \n5 \n \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 filed a Form AR-C in December 2024.  Since this time, the \nClaimant  has  not  requested  a  hearing  or demonstrated that  he  wishes  to \npursue 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 \n                                                           ORDER \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  \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                                                                                                CHANDRA L. BLACK \n                                                                                                Administrative Law Judge \n                                                                                                \n                                                                                            \n\nCANALES – H407977 \n \n6","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H407977 GARRISON CANALES, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT PATRIOT TIRE & OIL, LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 18, 2025 Hearing held before Administrative Law Judge Cha...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:36:28.610Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H407977-2025-09-18","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/CANALES_GARRISON_H407977_20250918.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}