{"id":"alj-H501893-2026-02-10","awcc_number":"H501893","decision_date":"2026-02-10","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Gabriel Franco","employer_name":"Lindsey Gin Co","title":"FRANCO VS. LINDSEY GIN CO. AWCC# H501893 February 10, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:10","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["knee"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Franco_Gabriel_H501893_20260210.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Franco_Gabriel_H501893_20260210.pdf","text_length":5909,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H501893 \n \nGABRIEL LARA FRANCO, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nLINDSEY GIN CO., \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \nAGRI GROUP-COMP SI FUND, \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                    RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED FEBRUARY 10, 2026 \n \nHearing conducted on Friday, December 19, 2025, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission (the Commission), Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Steven Porch, in Forrest City, \nSt. Francis County, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant is Pro Se, of Marion, Arkansas.  \n \nThe Respondents  were represented by Mr. Guy  Alton  Wade,  Attorney  at  Law, Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This matter comes before the Commission on a Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondents \non September 25, 2025.  A hearing on the motion was conducted on December 19, 2025, in Forrest \nCity, Arkansas.  Claimant, according to Commission file is Pro Se, failed to appear at the hearing.  \nThe Claimant worked for the Respondent/Employer as a seasonal gin laborer. The date for \nClaimant’s  alleged  injury  was  on October 29,   2024. This   incident   was   reported   to   the \nRespondent/Employer on October 30, 2024. Admitted into evidence was Respondents’ Exhibit 1, \npleadings, and correspondence, consisting of 11 pages, and Commission Ex. 1, emails, and U.S. \nMail return receipts, consisting of 5 pages, as discussed infra. \n\nFRANCO, AWCC No. H501893 \n \n2 \n \nThe record reflects on March 26, 2025, a Form AR-C was filed by Claimants then-attorney, \nMark  Peoples, purporting  that  Claimant sustained an injury to  his right  knee  in  a  work-related \nincident. On April  2,  2025,  a  Form  AR-1  was  filed  with  the  Commission noting  that Claimant \ninjured his right knee while descending a ladder. On April 2, 2025, a Form AR-2 was filed denying \ncompensability on the grounds that the alleged injury did not occur during employment.     \nClaimant’s then-attorney, Mr. Peoples, filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel on August \n25,  2025.   Mr. People’s motion  was  granted  on September  17,  2025. The  Respondents filed  a \nmotion  to  dismiss  for  lack  of  prosecution on  September  25,  2025. The  Claimant  was  sent, on \nOctober 1, 2025, notice of the Motion to Dismiss, via certified and regular U.S. Mail, to his last \nknown address. The certified motion notice was claimed by Claimant as noted on the October 10, \n2025,  return  receipt. This  notice was  also  sent regular  U.S.  Mail and did  not  return  to  the \nCommission. Despite  this,  the  Claimant  did not respond  to  the  Motion,  in  writing,  as  required. \nThus, in accordance with applicable Arkansas law, the Claimant was mailed due and proper legal \nnotice of Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss hearing date at hIS current  address  of  record  via  the \nUnited States Postal Service (USPS), First Class Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and \nregular First-Class Mail, on November 3, 2025. The certified notice was claimed as noted by the \nNovember 10, 2025, return receipt. Likewise, the hearing notice sent regular First-Class was not \nreturned to the Commission. The hearing took place on December 19, 2025. And as mentioned \nbefore, the Claimant did not show up to the hearing. \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):  \n\nFRANCO, AWCC No. H501893 \n \n3 \n \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The  Claimant  and  Respondents  both  had  reasonable  notice  of  the December  19, \n2025, hearing. \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 claimed by Claimant, per the return postal notice bearing the November 10, 2025, date. \nThus, I find by the preponderance of the evidence 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 March 26, 2025. Since then, he has failed to request a bona fide hearing. Therefore, I do \nfind by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has failed to prosecute his claim. Thus, \nRespondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \n\nFRANCO, AWCC No. H501893 \n \n4 \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. H501893 GABRIEL LARA FRANCO, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT LINDSEY GIN CO., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT AGRI GROUP-COMP SI FUND, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 10, 2026 Hearing conducted on Friday, December 19, 2025, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commi...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:31:58.288Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H501893-2026-02-10","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Franco_Gabriel_H501893_20260210.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}