{"id":"alj-H504304-2026-01-14","awcc_number":"H504304","decision_date":"2026-01-14","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Gary Clause","employer_name":"Alessi Keyes Construction Co","title":"CLAUSE VS. ALESSI KEYES CONSTRUCTION CO. AWCC# H504304 January 14, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:7","granted:2","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["hernia"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/CLAUSE_GARY_H504304_20260114.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"CLAUSE_GARY_H504304_20260114.pdf","text_length":4131,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nAWCC FILE No H504304 \n \nGARY CLAUSE, EMPLOYEE         CLAIMANT \n \nALESSI KEYES CONSTRUCTION CO., EMPLOYER                    RESPONDENT \n \nUNITED FIRE & CASUALTY CO., CARRIER                RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED 14 JANUARY 2026 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (“the Commission”) \nAdministrative Law Judge JayO. Howe on 7 January 2026 in Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nThe pro se claimant failed to appear. \n \nWorley, Wood & Parrish, P.A., Ms. Melissa Wood, 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 7 January 2026. This case relates to an alleged workplace injury \noccurring on 4 June 2025. The record from the hearing consists of the transcript; \nRespondents’ Exhibit No 1, which consisted of an index page and ten pages of documents \nand pleadings in support of their motion; and Commission’s Exhibit No 1, two pages that \nincluded a Form AR-C filed by the claimant and a Postal Service delivery receipt from \nCommission correspondence with the claimant.  \nThe record showed that the claimant filed a Form AR-C on 11 July 2025 alleging an \ninjury on 4 June 2025. On 15 July 2025, the respondents filed a First Report of Injury \nindicating an alleged hernia injury that had been reported to them on 14 July 2025. They \nsubsequently filed a Form AR-2 indicating that the claim was being denied.  \n\nG. CLAUSE- H504304 \n2 \n \nThe claimant retained an attorney at some point, but on 17 September 2025, the \nFull Commission entered an Order granting the attorney’s request to withdraw from the \nmatter. The claimant then submitted a hearing request on 19 September 2025. \nThen, on 29 October 2025, the respondents requested that this claim be dismissed \nfor the claimant’s failure to prosecute his claim under the Commission Rule at 11 C.A.R. § \n25-110(d). They stated that the claimant had failed to participate in their efforts to conduct \ndiscovery, including his refusal to submit signed releases for medical records.  \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. 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 7 January 2026 and presented their motion. As argued \nby the respondents at the hearing, 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d) provides for a dismissal for failure \nto prosecute an action upon application by either party and reasonable notice. As noted \n\nG. CLAUSE- H504304 \n3 \n \nabove, notice of the respondents’ motion and notice of the scheduling of the hearing was \nprovided 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. No \nobjection was filed to the respondents’ motion to dismiss this claim. Further, the claimant \ndid not appear at the hearing to object to 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 H504304 GARY CLAUSE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ALESSI KEYES CONSTRUCTION CO., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT UNITED FIRE & CASUALTY CO., CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED 14 JANUARY 2026 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (“the Commission”) Administrativ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:32:48.934Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H504304-2026-01-14","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/CLAUSE_GARY_H504304_20260114.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}