Miller Wright vs. Tractor Supply Co

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H208593 MILLER D. WRIGHT, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT TRACTOR SUPPLY CO., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT STARR SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO. INSURANCE COMPANY RESPONDENT STARR SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO. THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED OCTOBER 25, 2023 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge Steven Porch on October 24, 2023 in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. Claimant represented himself, Pro Se. The Respondents were represented by Mr. Eric Newkirk, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. I. BACKGROUND This matter comes before the Commission on a Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondents on August 3, 2023. A hearing on the motion was conducted on October 24, 2023, in Little Rock, Arkansas. Claimant represented himself, Pro Se. However, the Claimant was not present at the hearing. Respondents were represented at the hearing by Mr. Eric Newkirk, Attorney at Law, of Little Rock, Arkansas. In addition to Respondent’s argument, the record consists of Respondent’s Exhibit 1 and the Commission’s file–which has been incorporated herein in its entirety by reference. The evidence reflects that Claimant’s injury occurred on December 20, 2021, where he tried to retrieve a cat that got out of a kennel. The cat bit and scratched his right pointer finger, right thumb, and right wrist. This incident allegedly occurred during the

MILLER H208593 2 course and scope of his employment. Since filing his Form C on December 9, 2022, this case has been inactive until Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss due to the lack of prosecution. A hearing was held on October 24, 2023, in Little Rock, Arkansas on the Motion to Dismiss. As previously stated, the Claimant was not present 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 without prejudice. 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). 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

MILLER H208593 3 “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 for the Motion to Dismiss hearing under Rule 13. I further find that Claimant has abridged this rule. Thus I find Respondent’s 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