Kevin Gilliam vs. All American Poly Corp

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H403030 KEVIN L. GILLIAM, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ALL AMERICAN POLY CORP., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO. of AMERICA, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED AUGUST 26, 2025 Hearing conducted on Tuesday, July 29, 2025, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (the Commission), Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Steven Porch, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. The Claimant, Mr. Kevin L. Gilliam, Pro Se, of Mulberry, Arkansas. The Respondents were represented by Mr. Guy Alton Wade, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. I. BACKGROUND This matter comes before the Commission on a Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondents on May 15, 2025. A hearing on the motion was conducted on July 29, 2025, in Little Rock, Arkansas. Claimant, according to Commission file is Pro Se, failed to appear at the hearing. The Claimant worked for the Respondent/Employer as a machinist. The date for Claimant’s alleged injury was on November 4, 2023. He reported his injury to Respondent/Employer on the same day. Respondents admitted into the record Respondents’ Exhibit 1, pleadings, and correspondence, consisting of 13 pages. The Commission has admitted into evidence Commission Ex. 1, correspondence, and U.S. Mail return receipts, consisting of 8 pages, as discussed infra.

GILLIAM, AWCC No. H403030 2 The record reflects on May 7, 2024, a Form AR-C was filed with the Commission by Claimant’s then-counsel, Mark Peoples, purporting that Claimant sustained work-related injuries to his right hand. On May 22, 2024, a Form AR-1 was filed with the Commission purporting that Claimant’s disability specifically occurred when his (right) arm was caught in a winder from an extrusion machine. Also on May 22, 2024, a Form AR-2 was filed by Respondents accepting compensability, medical only, for the crush injury to his right arm. Claimant filed for a change of physician on September 13, 2024. This request was granted on January 8, 2025, thus changing his physician from Dr. Clint Bearden to Dr. Austin Cole. On March 4, 2025, Claimant’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. The Full Commission granted the motion on April 9, 2025. On May 15, 2025, Respondents’ counsel filed a Motion to Dismiss due to Claimant’s failure to prosecute his claim. The Claimant was sent, on May 19, 2025, notice of the Motion to Dismiss, via certified and regular U.S. Mail, to his last known address. The certified motion notice was claimed by Claimant as noted on the May 22, 2025, return receipt. The Claimant did not respond to the Motion, in writing, as required. Thus, in accordance with applicable Arkansas law, the Claimant was mailed due and proper legal notice of Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss hearing date at his current address of record via the United States Postal Service (USPS), First Class Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular First-Class Mail, on June 26, 2025. The certified notice was claimed on June 30, 2025, as noted by the return receipt. The hearing took place on July 29, 2025. And as mentioned before, the Claimant did not show up to 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):

GILLIAM, AWCC No. H403030 3 1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. 2. The Claimant and Respondents both had reasonable notice of the July 29, 2025, hearing. 3. Respondents have proven by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has failed to prosecute his claim under 11 C.A.R. § 25-110 (formerly AWCC Rule 099.13. ) 4. The Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. 5. This claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice. III. DISCUSSION 11 C.A.R. § 25-110 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). Consistent with 11 C.A.R. § 25-110, the Commission scheduled and conducted a hearing, with reasonable notice, on the Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss. The certified hearing notice was claimed on June 30, 2025, per the return postal notice bearing the same date. Thus, I find by the preponderance of the evidence that reasonable notice was given to the Claimant. Furthermore, 11 C.A.R. § 25-110 allows the Commission, upon meritorious application, to dismiss an action pending before it due to a want of prosecution. The Claimant filed his Form AR-C on May 7, 2024. Since then, he has failed to request a bona fide hearing. Therefore, I do find by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has failed to prosecute his claim by failing to request a hearing. Thus, Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted.

GILLIAM, AWCC No. H403030 4 CONCLUSION Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted, and Claimant’s claim is dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. ________________________________ STEVEN PORCH Administrative Law Judge