Ronald Parr vs. Humane Society Of Pulaski Co

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H204316 RONALD A. PARR, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT HUMANE SOCIETY OF PULASKI CO., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 19, 2023 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge Steven Porch on May 18, 2023 in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. Claimant, pro se. The Respondents were represented by Mr. William C. Frye, Attorney at Law, North Little Rock, Arkansas. I. BACKGROUND This matter comes before the Commission on a Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondents. A hearing on the motion was conducted on May 18, 2023, in Little Rock, Arkansas. Claimant, who is pro se, did not appear for the hearing. Respondents were represented at the hearing by Mr. William C. Frye, Attorney at Law, of North Little Rock, Arkansas. In addition to Respondents’ argument, the record consists of the Commission’s file–which has been incorporated herein in its entirety by reference. The evidence reflects that Claimant’s injury occurred on May 17, 2022, where he purportedly injured his whole body. This incident allegedly occurred when Claimant was cleaning a septic tank during the course and scope of his employment. Claimant called

PARR – H204316 2 Respondents’ counsel, William C. Frye, on July 8, 2022, stating that he wants to pursue his claim. Since then, this case has been inactive until Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss due to the lack of prosecution. A hearing was held on May 18, 2023, in Little Rock, Arkansas on the Motion to Dismiss. As previously stated, the Claimant did not appear for the hearing. II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW After reviewing the record as a whole and other matters properly before the Commission, I hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): 1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. 2. All parties received reasonable and timely notice of the Motion to Dismiss and the hearing thereon pursuant to AWCC R. 099.13. 3. Respondents did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has failed to prosecute his claim under AWCC R. 099.13. 4. The Motion to Dismiss should be, and hereby is, granted. III. DISCUSSION AWCC 099.13 provides: Upon meritorious application to the Commission from either party in an action pending before the Commission, requesting that the claim be dismissed for want of prosecution, the Commission may, upon reasonable notice to all parties, enter an order dismissing the claim for want of prosecution. See generally Johnson v. Triple T Foods, 55 Ark. App. 83, 85, 929 S.W.2d 730 (1996).

PARR – H204316 3 Under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(3) (Repl. 2012), Respondents must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that dismissal should be granted. The standard “preponderance of the evidence” means the evidence having greater weight or convincing force. Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 S.W.3d 415; Smith v. Magnet Cove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947). A claimant’s testimony is never considered uncontroverted. Nix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 Ark. App. 303, 879 S.W.2d 457 (1994). The determination of a witness’ credibility and how much weight to accord to that person’s testimony are solely up to the Commission. White v. Gregg Agricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001). The Commission must sort through conflicting evidence and determine the true facts. Id. In so doing, the Commission is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant or any other witness, but may accept and translate into findings of fact only those portions of the testimony that it deems worthy of belief. Id. After consideration of all the evidence, I find that Claimant and Respondents were given reasonable notice, at the addresses provided by each party, for the Motion to Dismiss hearing under Rule 13. I further find that Claimant has abridged this rule. Thus I find Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. CONCLUSION Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. ________________________________ STEVEN PORCH Administrative Law Judge