{"id":"alj-H500896-2025-11-26","awcc_number":"H500896","decision_date":"2025-11-26","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Stephen Moore","employer_name":"Incite Rehab, LLC","title":"MOORE VS. INCITE REHAB, LLC AWCC# H500896 November 26, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:9","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Moore_Stephen_H500896_20251126.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Moore_Stephen_H500896_20251126.pdf","text_length":6015,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H500896 \n \nSTEPHEN H. MOORE, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nINCITE REHAB, LLC, \nSELF-INSURED EMPLOYER                                                                           RESPONDENT  \n \nARK. SELF-INSURED TRUST, \nCARRIER                                                                                                             RESPONDENT \n \nCCMSI, \nTHIRD-PARTY ADMINISTRATOR                                                                RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED NOVEMBER 26, 2025 \n \nHearing conducted on Tuesday, October 14, 2025, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission  (the  Commission),  Administrative  Law  Judge (ALJ) Steven  Porch,  in Little  Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant is Pro Se, of Jonesboro, Arkansas.  \n \nThe Respondents were represented by Mr. Jarrod Parrish, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This matter comes before the Commission on a Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondents \non August 12, 2025.  A hearing on the motion was conducted on October 14, 2025, in Little Rock, \nArkansas.  Claimant, according to Commission file is Pro Se, failed to appear at the hearing.  \nThe Claimant worked for the Respondent/Employer as a retirement living HEA. The date \nfor Claimant’s alleged injury was on November 18, 2024. There is an issue as to when this incident \nwas reported to the Respondent/Employer. Admitted into evidence was Respondents’ Exhibit 1, \npleadings, and correspondence, consisting of 8 pages, and Commission Ex. 1, pleadings, and U.S. \nMail return receipts, consisting of 7 pages, as discussed infra. \n\nMOORE, AWCC No. H500896 \n \n2 \n \nThe record reflects on February 10, 2025, a Form AR-C was filed purporting that Claimant \nsustained a work-related injury to his low back while treating two patients. On February 24, 2025, \na Form AR-1 was filed with the Commission noting that the date the employer was notified was \non February 10, 2024\n1\n. On February 24, 2025, a Form AR-2 was filed denying compensability.   \nRespondents filed a Motion to Dismiss due to Claimant’s failure to prosecute his claim on \nAugust 12, 2025. The Claimant was sent, on August 15, 2025, notice of the Motion to Dismiss, \nvia certified  and  regular  U.S.  Mail,  to  his last  known  address.  The  certified motion notice  was \nclaimed by Claimant as  noted on the August 19,  2025, return receipt. This notice was  also sent \nregular U.S. Mail and did not return to the Commission. Despite this, the Claimant did not respond \nto  the  Motion,  in  writing,  as  required. Thus,  in accordance  with  applicable  Arkansas  law,  the \nClaimant was mailed due and proper legal notice of Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss hearing date \nat his current address of record via the United States Postal Service (USPS), First Class Certified \nMail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular First-Class Mail, on September 8, 2025. The certified \nnotice was not claimed as noted by the September 23, 2025, return receipt. Likewise, the hearing \nnotice  sent  regular  First-Class  was  not  returned  to  the  Commission. The  hearing  took  place  on \nOctober 14, 2025. And as mentioned before, the Claimant did not show up to the hearing. \n \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After reviewing the record as a whole and other matters properly before the Commission, \nI hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012):  \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n1\n This date appears to be in error since the date of injury comes months after the date of notice to the employer. \n\nMOORE, AWCC No. H500896 \n \n3 \n \n \n2. The Claimant and Respondents both had reasonable notice of the October 14, 2025, \nhearing. \n \n3. Respondents have proven by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has \nfailed to prosecute his claim under 11 C.A.R. §25-110(d) (formerly AWCC Rule \n099.13).  \n \n4. The Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \n \n5. This claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice.     \n \n \nIII.  DISCUSSION \n 11 C.A.R. §25-110(d) provides: \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. \n \nSee generally Johnson v. Triple T Foods, 55 Ark. App. 83, 85, 929 S.W.2d 730 (1996).   \nConsistent  with 11  C.A.R. §25-110(d), the  Commission  scheduled  and  conducted  a \nhearing,  with  reasonable  notice, on  the Respondents’ Motion  to Dismiss. The  certified  hearing \nnotice was not claimed by Claimant, per the return postal notice bearing the September 23, 2025, \ndate. However, the hearing notice was also sent First-Class U.S. Mail to Claimant’s last known \naddress  record  and  did  not  return  to  the  Commission. Thus,  I  find  by  the  preponderance  of  the \nevidence that reasonable notice was given to the Claimant.  \nFurthermore, 11 C.A.R. §25-110(d) allows the Commission, upon meritorious application, \nto dismiss an action pending before it due to a want of prosecution. The Claimant filed his Form \nAR-C on February 10, 2025. Since then, he has failed to request a bona fide hearing. Therefore, I \n\nMOORE, AWCC No. H500896 \n \n4 \n \ndo find by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has failed to prosecute his claim. Thus, \nRespondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \n \nCONCLUSION \n Based  on  the Findings  of Fact  and Conclusions  of Law set forth above, Respondents’ \nMotion to Dismiss is hereby granted, and Claimant’s claim is dismissed without prejudice. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n      ________________________________ \n      STEVEN PORCH \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H500896 STEPHEN H. MOORE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT INCITE REHAB, LLC, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARK. SELF-INSURED TRUST, CARRIER RESPONDENT CCMSI, THIRD-PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 26, 2025 Hearing conducted on Tuesday, October 14, 2...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:35:02.882Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H500896-2025-11-26","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Moore_Stephen_H500896_20251126.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}