{"id":"alj-H502993-2026-02-02","awcc_number":"H502993","decision_date":"2026-02-02","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Charles Tristian","employer_name":"Wingstop","title":"TRISTIAN VS. WINGSTOP AWCC# H502993 February 02, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:7","granted:2","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/TRISTIAN_CHARLES_H502993_20260202.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"TRISTIAN_CHARLES_H502993_20260202.pdf","text_length":4031,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nAWCC FILE No H502993 \n \nCHARLES J. TRISTIAN, EMPLOYEE        CLAIMANT \n \nWINGSTOP, EMPLOYER                        RESPONDENT \n \nCHARTER OAK FIRE INS. CO., CARRIER                RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED 2 FEBRUARY 2026 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (“the Commission”) \nAdministrative Law Judge JayO. Howe on 14 January 2026 in Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nThe pro se claimant failed to appear. \n \nFriday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, Mr. Guy Alton Wade, appeared for the respondents. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A hearing on the respondents’ Motion to Dismiss was held on this matter in Little \nRock, Arkansas, on 14 January 2026. This case relates to an alleged workplace injury \noccurring on 7 May 2025. The record from the hearing consists of the transcript; \nRespondents’ Exhibit No 1, which consisted of nine pages of documents and pleadings in \nsupport of their motion; and Commission’s Exhibit No 1, three pages that included a Form \nAR-C filed by the claimant and two Postal Service delivery receipts from Commission \ncorrespondence with the claimant.  \nThe record showed that the claimant filed a Form AR-C on 13 May 2025 alleging an \ninjury on 7 May 2025. On 27 May 2025, the respondents filed a First Report of Injury \nindicating an alleged eye injury that had been reported to them on 7 May 2025. They \nsubsequently filed a Form AR-2 indicating that the claim was being denied.  \nThe respondents later requested that this claim be dismissed for the claimant’s \nfailure to prosecute his claim under the Commission Rule at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d). They \n\nC. TRISTIAN- H502993 \n2 \n \nstated that the claimant had failed to participate in their efforts to conduct discovery and \nnoted that he had not requested a hearing on any issue ripe for litigation.  \n Notice of the respondents’ motion was sent to the claimant, consistent with \nCommission practices, via First Class Mail and Certified Mail. Notice of a hearing on the \nrespondents’ motion was sent in the same manner. Two Postal Service delivery receipts \nevidence that the claimant received those notice letters. The record does not reflect any \nresponsive filings from the claimant; and he did not attend the hearing to object to the \ndismissal of this claim. \nFINDINDGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After reviewing the record as a whole, I hereby make the following findings of fact \nand conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n 1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter. \n2. The parties were provided with reasonable notice of the Motion to Dismiss \nand the hearing on the motion. \n \n3. The evidence preponderates that the claimant has failed to prosecute his \nclaim under 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d). \n \n4. The Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted; this claim is dismissed without \nprejudice under 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d). \n \nDISCUSSION \nThe respondents appeared on 14 January 2026 and presented their motion. As \nargued by the respondents at the hearing, 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d) provides for a dismissal for \nfailure to prosecute an action upon application by either party and reasonable notice. As \nnoted above, notice of the respondents’ motion and notice of the scheduling of the hearing \nwas provided to the claimant. \nThe respondents argue that the claimant has failed to cooperate in their attempts to \nconduct discovery that is relevant and necessary in the prosecution of this claim. \n\nC. TRISTIAN- H502993 \n3 \n \nAdditionally, the claimant has not requested a hearing on any issue in his claim. No \nobjection was filed to the respondents’ motion to dismiss this claim. Further, the claimant \ndid not appear at the hearing to resist the dismissal of his claim. Based on the evidence \npresented, a dismissal without prejudice is appropriate.  \nORDER \n The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT \nPREJUDICE. \nSO ORDERED. \n________________________________ \n       JAYO. HOWE \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWCC FILE No H502993 CHARLES J. TRISTIAN, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT WINGSTOP, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT CHARTER OAK FIRE INS. CO., CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED 2 FEBRUARY 2026 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (“the Commission”) Administrative Law Judge Ja...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:31:35.227Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H502993-2026-02-02","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/TRISTIAN_CHARLES_H502993_20260202.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}