{"id":"alj-H503219-2026-04-29","awcc_number":"H503219","decision_date":"2026-04-29","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Steven Armstrong","employer_name":"Costco Wholesale Corp","title":"ARMSTRONG VS. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP. AWCC# H503219 April 29, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:10","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["knee","hip","shoulder"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Armstrong_Steven_H503219_20260429.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Armstrong_Steven_H503219_20260429.pdf","text_length":5893,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H503219 \n \nSTEVEN L. ARMSTRONG, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nCOSTCO WHOLESALE CORP., \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \nSAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORP., \nCARRIER                                                                                                             RESPONDENT \n \nHELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, \nTPA                                                                                                                        RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED APRIL 29, 2026 \n \nHearing conducted on Friday, March 31,  2026,  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 Benton, Arkansas.  \n \nThe Respondents were represented by Mr. David C. Jones, 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 January 15, 2026.  A hearing on the motion was conducted on March 31, 2026, 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 gas station attendant. The date for \nClaimant’s  alleged  injury  was  on July 20,   2024. This   incident   was   reported   to   the \nRespondent/Employer on the  same  date. Admitted  into  evidence  was Respondents’ Exhibit 1, \npleadings, and correspondence, consisting of 29 pages, and Commission Ex. 1, emails, and U.S. \nMail return receipts, consisting of 6 pages, as discussed infra. \n\nARMSTRONG, AWCC No. H503219 \n \n2 \n \nThe record reflects on May 27, 2025, a Form AR-C was filed by Claimant purporting that \nClaimant sustained injuries to his right knee, left hip and shoulder, abdomen, and chest when he \ntripped over  a rolled-up  mat. On August 7, 2025, a Form AR-1 was filed  with the Commission \nnoting that Claimant’s injuries occurred while working on stocking D19. Also on August 7, 2025, \na Form AR-2 was filed denying compensability on the abdomen but accepting compensability for \nthe right hip and right knee.     \nThe Respondents filed  a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution on January 15, 2026. \nThe Claimant was sent, on January 21, 2026, notice of the Motion to Dismiss, via certified and \nregular U.S. Mail, to his last known address. The certified motion notice was claimed by Claimant \nas noted on the January 28, 2026, return receipt. This notice was also sent regular U.S. Mail and \ndid  not  return  to  the  Commission. Despite  this,  the  Claimant  did not respond  to  the  Motion,  in \nwriting, as required. Thus, in accordance with applicable Arkansas law, the Claimant was mailed \ndue and proper legal notice of Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss hearing date to his current address \nof record via the United States Postal Service (USPS), First Class Certified Mail, Return Receipt \nRequested, and regular First-Class Mail, on February 24, 2026. The certified notice was claimed \nas noted by the March 2, 2026, return receipt. Likewise, the hearing notice sent regular First-Class \nwas not returned to the Commission. The hearing took place on March 31, 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):  \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n\nARMSTRONG, AWCC No. H503219 \n \n3 \n \n \n2. The Claimant and Respondents both had reasonable notice of the March 31, 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 claimed by Claimant, per the return postal notice bearing the March 2, 2026, date. Thus, \nI 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 May 27, 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 \n\nARMSTRONG, AWCC No. H503219 \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. H503219 STEVEN L. ARMSTRONG, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORP., CARRIER RESPONDENT HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 29, 2026 Hearing conducted on Friday, March 31,...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:30:22.107Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H503219-2026-04-29","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Armstrong_Steven_H503219_20260429.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}