{"id":"alj-H502518-2026-03-18","awcc_number":"H502518","decision_date":"2026-03-18","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Christopher Brown","employer_name":"Equix Energy, Inc","title":"BROWN VS. EQUIX ENERGY, INC. AWCC# H502518 March 18, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:9","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["neck"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Brown_Christopher_H502518_20260318.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Brown_Christopher_H502518_20260318.pdf","text_length":6241,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H502518 \n \nCHRISTOPHER BROWN, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nEQUIX ENERGY, INC., \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \nXL SPECIALTY INS., \nCARRIER                                                                                                             RESPONDENT \n \nSEDGWICK CLAIMS MGMT.  \nSERVICES, INC., TPA                                                                                        RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED MARCH 18, 2026 \n \nHearing conducted on Friday, January 16,  2026, 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 Little Rock, Arkansas.  \n \nThe Respondents  were represented by Ms. Karen  McKinney, 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 October 29,  2025.    A  hearing  on  the  motion  was  conducted  on January 16,  2026,  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 laborer. The date for Claimant’s \nalleged injury was on March 11, 2025. This incident was reported to the Respondent/Employer on \nthe same day. Admitted into evidence was Respondents’ Exhibit 1, pleadings, and correspondence, \nconsisting of 43 pages, and Commission Ex. 1, pleadings, correspondence, and U.S. Mail return \nreceipts, consisting of 9 pages, as discussed infra. \n\nBROWN, AWCC No. H502518 \n \n2 \n \nThe record reflects on April 24, 2025, a Form AR-C was filed by Claimants then-attorney, \nMark Peoples, purporting that Claimant sustained a work injury to his neck. On June 6, 2025, a \nForm AR-1 purporting that Claimant has neck pain with radiculopathy down his left arm. Also on \nJune 17, 2025, a Form AR-2 was filed denying compensability based on insufficient evidence. On \nJune 26, 2025, Claimant’s then-attorney filed a motion to withdraw as Claimant’s attorney. The \nFull Commission granted Mr. People’s motion on July 25, 2025.  \nOn October 29, 2025, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss due to a lack of prosecution, \nspecifically not complying with discovery. The Claimant was sent, on November 10, 2025, notice \nof  the  Motion  to  Dismiss, via certified  and  regular  U.S.  Mail,  to  his last  known  address.  The \ncertified motion notice was not claimed by Claimant per return receipt dated November 24, 2025. \nThis  notice was  also  sent regular  U.S.  Mail and was returned to  the  Commission. Despite \nreasonable efforts to reach Claimant, the Claimant did not respond to the Motion, in writing, as \nrequired. Thus,  in  accordance  with  applicable  Arkansas  law,  the  Claimant  was  mailed  due  and \nproper legal notice of Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss hearing date at her current address of record \nvia the United States Postal Service (USPS), First Class Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, \nand regular First-Class Mail, on December 10, 2025. The certified notice was not claimed as noted \nby the December 19, 2025, return receipt. Likewise, the hearing notice sent regular First-Class was \nnot returned to the Commission. The hearing took place on January 16, 2026. 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\nBROWN, AWCC No. H502518 \n \n3 \n \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The Claimant and Respondents both had reasonable notice of the January 16, 2026, \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 December 19, 2025, \ndate. The hearing notice sent First-Class mail did not return to the Commission. The Claimant is \nresponsible for providing the Commission with their most recent address. Sending the Claimant \nnotices at their last known address of record is reasonable. Thus, I find by the preponderance of \nthe 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 \n\nBROWN, AWCC No. H502518 \n \n4 \n \nAR-C on April 24, 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 \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. H502518 CHRISTOPHER BROWN, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT EQUIX ENERGY, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT XL SPECIALTY INS., CARRIER RESPONDENT SEDGWICK CLAIMS MGMT. SERVICES, INC., TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 18, 2026 Hearing conducted on Friday, January 16, 2026, before ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:31:01.788Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H502518-2026-03-18","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Brown_Christopher_H502518_20260318.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}