{"id":"alj-H504681-2026-04-13","awcc_number":"H504681","decision_date":"2026-04-13","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Chris Helms","employer_name":"Ristorante Capeo","title":"HELMS VS. RISTORANTE CAPEO AWCC# H504681 April 13, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:5","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["ankle"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HELMS_CHRIS_H504681_20260413.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"HELMS_CHRIS_H504681_20260413.pdf","text_length":11311,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO.:H504681 \n \nCHRIS W. HELMS,  \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                CLAIMANT                                                    \n \nRISTORANTE CAPEO, \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT              \n \nFIRSTCOMP INSURANCE  \nCO./ MARKEL SERVICES INC.,                                                                                               \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                       RESPONDENT                                               \n \n \nOPINION FILED APRIL 13, 2026   \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n  \nThe Claimant, pro se/unrepresented did not appear at the hearing.     \n \nRespondents represented by the Honorable Randy P. Murphy, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n                                                  STATEMENT OF THE CASE      \n \n On April 8, 2026, a hearing was held on the Respondents’ motion to dismiss this claim for \nArkansas workers’ compensation benefits due  to a  lack  of  prosecution, pursuant  to Dillard  v. \nBenton County Sheriff’s Office, 87 Ark. App. 379, 192 S.W. 3d 287 (2004).  Here, the sole issue \nfor determination is whether this claim should be dismissed due to the Claimant’s failure to timely \nprosecute it  under the  provisions  of Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-702 (Repl.  2012),  and/or Arkansas \nWorkers’ Compensation Commission Rule 099.13 (now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d)).  \nAppropriate Notice of this hearing was had on all parties to their last known address, in the \nmanner established by law.   \nThe  record  consists  of  the  transcript  of April 8,  2026,  hearing  and  the  documents  held \ntherein.    Specifically, Commission’s Exhibit 1   includes   four   pages   of   notices   from   the \n\nHELMS – H504681 \n \n2 \n \nCommission, the United States Postal Service, and a copy of the Form AR-2; and Respondents’ \nExhibit  1 consisting  of a  Documentary  Exhibit made up of three pages which  include  the \nRespondents’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute, and the Form AR-C.  Said exhibits were \nmade a part of the record without objection. \nNo testimony was taken at the hearing. \n               Procedural History \n On or about July 28, 2025, the Claimant filed a Form AR-C alleging that he sustained a \ncompensable injury in the course and scope of his employment with the respondent-employer on \nMay 20, 2025.  The Claimant alleged that he sustained an accidental injury to his right ankle.  Per \nthis  document,  the  Claimant  asserted  his  entitlement  to  both  initial  and  additional  workers’ \ncompensation benefits. \n Pursuant to a  Form  AR-2 filed by the Respondents with the Commission on August 15, \n2025, they controverted the claim in its entirety.  Specifically, the Respondents stated: “Denied in \nfull no accident no injury.”  \nSince the filing of the Form AR-C in July 2025, the Claimant has made no bona fide request \nfor a hearing on the merits of his claim.  Moreover, the Claimant has taken no affirmative action \nwhatsoever to pursue or resolve his claim for workers’ compensation benefits.           \nTherefore, the  Respondents  filed  a Motion  to  Dismiss  for  Failure  to  Prosecute with the \nCommission on February 5, 2026, along with a certificate of service to the Claimant showing that \na copy of this pleading was sent to him via email.   \nOn February  6, 2026, my  office sent  a  letter  to  the  Claimant informing  him about the \nmotion for dismissal of his workers’ compensation claim, along with a deadline of twenty days for \nfiling a written objection/response.  This correspondence was sent by way of both first-class and \n\nHELMS – H504681 \n \n3 \n \ncertified mail.  Per information received from the United States Postal Service, they delivered the \nnotice to the Claimant’s residence listed with the Commission.  However, the signature of the \nrecipient  taking  delivery  of  this  letter  is  illegible.    The  letter  sent  via  regular  mail  has  not  been \nreturned to the Commission.  \nPer a Notice of Hearing generated on February 27, 2026, my office notified the parties that \na hearing had been scheduled on the Respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Said dismissal hearing was \nscheduled for Wednesday, April 8, 2026, at 12:30 p.m., at the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission, in Little Rock, Arkansas.  Said hearing notice was sent via first-class and certified \nmail.  \nMy review of the tracking information received from the U.S. Postal Service confirms that \nthe hearing notice sent to the Claimant via certified mail was delivered to his home and left with \nan individual on March 2, 2026.  Again, the individual’s signature appearing on the return receipt \nis illegible.  Nevertheless, the hearing notice sent to the Claimant via first-class mail has not been \nreturned to the Commission.  Under these circumstances, I find that the Claimant received proper \nnotice of the hearing.   \nTherefore, a hearing was conducted before the Commission, on the Respondents’ motion \nto dismiss  on April  8,  2026.   The  Claimant did  not appear  at  the  hearing.    However,  the \nRespondents’ attorney appeared for the hearing.   \nDuring the hearing, counsel for the Respondents moved that this claim be dismissed due to \na  lack  of  prosecution under  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-702  and/or 11  C.A.R. §25-110 (d),  without \nprejudice.  Counsel specifically noted that the Claimant has not requested a hearing on his claim \nsince the filing of the Form AR-C in July 2025.  \n \n\nHELMS – H504681 \n \n4 \n \n                     Adjudication \nTherefore, the statutory provisions and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Rule applicable \nin the Respondents’ request for dismissal of this claim are outlined below:   \nSpecifically, Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702(a)(4) provides:  \nIf within six (6) months after the filing of a claim for compensation, no bona fide \nrequest for a hearing has been made with respect to the claim, the claim may, upon \nmotion and after hearing, be dismissed without prejudice to the refiling of the claim \nwithin the limitation periods specified in subdivisions (a)(1)-(3) of this section. \n \nAdditionally, Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702(d) provides:   \nIf within six (6) months after the filing of a claim for additional compensation, no \nbona fide request for a hearing has been made with respect to the claim, the claim \nmay, upon motion and after hearing, if necessary, be dismissed without prejudice \nto the refiling of the claim within the limitation period specified in subsection (b) \nof this section.  \n Commission Rule 099.13 (now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110 (d), reads as follows:  \nThe Commission may, in its discretion, postpone or recess hearings at the instance \nof either party or on its own motion.  No case set for a hearing shall be postponed \nexcept by approval of the Commission or Administrative Law Judge. \n \nIn the event neither party appears at the initial hearing, the case may be dismissed \nby  the  Commission  or  Administrative  Law  Judge,  and  such  dismissal  order  will \nbecome  final  unless  an  appeal  is  timely  taken  therefrom  or  a  proper  motion  to \nreopen  is  filed with  the  Commission  within  thirty  (30)  days  from  receipt  of  the \norder. \n \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.  (Effective March 1, 1982) \n \nMy review of the records in this matter shows that more than six months have passed since \nthe filing of this claim, which was done in July 2025.  However, since that time, the Claimant has \nfailed to make a bona fide request for a hearing with respect to his claim for workers’ compensation \nbenefits, which is clearly more than six months ago.  In fact, no probative action whatsoever has \n\nHELMS – H504681 \n \n5 \n \nbeen put forth by the Claimant to pursue his claim. Moreover, the Claimant has failed to respond \nto the notices of this Commission.   \n Considering all the foregoing evidence, I am compelled to conclude that the Claimant has \nabandoned  his claim for workers’ compensation benefits.   Hence,  the  Claimant  has  failed  to \nprosecute his claim.  \n Based on all the aforementioned reasons, I find that the Respondents’ motion to dismiss \nthis  claim is  warranted.    Therefore,  pursuant  to Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-702 (Repl.  2012)  and \nCommission Rule 099.13, this claim for both initial and additional benefits is hereby respectfully \ndismissed for want of prosecution.  Said dismissal is without prejudice, to the refiling of this claim \nwithin the limitation period specified by law.   \n                                         Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law \nOn  the  basis  of  the  record  as  a  whole,  I  hereby  make  the  following  findings  of  fact  and \nconclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this \nclaim.  \n \n2. The Claimant has not requested a hearing since the filing of the Form AR-\nC (which  was  done  more  than  six  months  ago), nor has  he taken  any \naffirmative action to resolve his claim.   \n \n3.   The Respondents filed with the Commission a motion for dismissal of this \nclaim due to a lack of prosecution, for which a hearing was held. \n \n4. Proper  Notice of  the  dismissal hearing  was had on all  parties  to  their  last \nknown address, in the manner prescribed by law.    \n \n5.          The  Claimant  did  not  appear  at  the  hearing  to  object  to  his  claim  being \ndismissed despite having received notice of the hearing.  Nor did he respond \nto the notices of this Commission. \n \n6. Hence, the evidence preponderates that the Claimant has failed to prosecute \nhis claim for workers’ compensation benefits.   Moreover,  the  evidence \nbefore me shows that the Claimant has abandoned the within claim.     \n\nHELMS – H504681 \n \n6 \n \n7. The Respondents’ motion to dismiss this claim due to a lack of prosecution \nis hereby granted, pursuant to the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702 \n  and 11 C.A.R. §25-110 (d), without prejudice, to the refiling of it within the \nlimitation period specified by law.  \n \nORDER \n Based  upon  the  foregoing findings, I  have  no  alternative  but  to  dismiss  this  claim  for \nworkers’ compensation benefits due to a lack of prosecution.  This dismissal is pursuant to Ark. \nCode  Ann.  §11-9-702 and Commission  Rule  099.13(now  codified  at  11  C.A.R. §25-110  (d)) \nwithout prejudice to the refiling of this claim within the limitation period specified under the Act. \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n   \n \n                                                                      ________________________________ \n  CHANDRA L. BLACK  \n                                                     Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.:H504681 CHRIS W. HELMS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT RISTORANTE CAPEO, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT FIRSTCOMP INSURANCE CO./ MARKEL SERVICES INC., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 13, 2026 Hearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Little Rock,...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:59.279Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H504681-2026-04-13","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HELMS_CHRIS_H504681_20260413.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}