{"id":"alj-H500021-2025-09-24","awcc_number":"H500021","decision_date":"2025-09-24","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Sean Kurz","employer_name":"Family Dollar Stores","title":"KURZ VS. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES AWCC# H500021 September 24, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:5","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["ankle"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/KURZ_SEAN_H500021_20250924.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"KURZ_SEAN_H500021_20250924.pdf","text_length":2321,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. H500021 \n \nSEAN KURZ, Employee CLAIMANT \n \nFAMILY DOLLAR STORES, Employer RESPONDENT \n \nSEDWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, Carrier RESPONDENT \n \n \n \n OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 24, 2025 \n \nHearing   before   ADMINISTRATIVE   LAW   JUDGE GREGORY   K.   STEWART in \nSpringdale, Washington County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant not represented by counsel and not appearing at hearing. \n \nRespondents   represented   by MELISSSA   WOOD,   Attorney   at   Law, Little   Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n This case comes on for review following a hearing on respondent’s Motion to \nDismiss. \n Respondent accepted as compensable an injury to claimant’s ankle on May 2, \n2024. The claim was accepted as a medical only claim. Thereafter, claimant apparently \nmoved  to  Utah  and  received  some  medical  treatment  which  respondent  has  not \naccepted.   On   January   2,   2025,   claimant   filed   Form   AR-C   requesting   various \ncompensation benefits. \n Since the filing of the AR-C, no hearing has been requested and no other action \nhas  been  taken  by  claimant  to  proceed  with  his  claim.  On  July  10,  2025,  respondents \nfiled a Motion to Dismiss alleging, in part, that claimant had failed to prosecute his claim \n\nKurz – H500021 \n \n-2- \nand  requesting a  dismissal  pursuant  to  11  CAR § 25-110  (d).  That  rule  provides  that \nupon application by either party for a dismissal for failure to prosecute, the Commission \nmay, after reasonable notice to all parties, enter an order dismissing the claim.  \n A hearing was scheduled on respondents’ Motion to Dismiss for September 17, \n2025.  Notice  of  the  hearing  was  sent  to  claimant  by  certified  mail  and  delivered  on \nAugust  12,  2025.  Claimant  did  not  appear  at  the  hearing  and  has  not  responded  to \nrespondents’ motion.  \n After  my  review  of  respondents’  motion,  claimant’s  failure  to  appear  at  the \nhearing  and  his  failure  to  respond  to  respondents’  motion,  I  find  that  respondents’ \nmotion to dismiss this claim should be and here by is granted for failure to prosecute the \nclaim. This dismissal is without prejudice. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n      _______________________________ \n      GREGORY K. STEWART \n      ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H500021 SEAN KURZ, Employee CLAIMANT FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, Employer RESPONDENT SEDWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 24, 2025 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GREGORY K. STEWART in Springdale, Washington County, Arkansas...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:36:43.150Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H500021-2025-09-24","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/KURZ_SEAN_H500021_20250924.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}