Reggie Tucker vs. Georgia Pacific, LLC

1 BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H407791 REGGIE TUCKER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT GEORGIA PACIFIC, LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT OLD REPUBLIC INS. CO./ ESIS, INC. CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 12, 2025, GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Hearing conducted on Thursday, September 11, 2025, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (the Commission), Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mike Pickens, in El Dorado, Union County, Arkansas. The claimant, Reggie Tucker, pro se, failed and/or refused to appear at the hearing. The respondents were represented by the Honorable Rick Behring, Jr., Newkirk & Jones, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. STATEMENT OF THE CASE A hearing was conducted on Thursday, September 11, 2025, to determine whether this claim should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(a)(4) (2025 Lexis Replacement) and 11 C.A.R. Section 25-110(d) (Code of AR Regulations 2025) (formerly cited as Commission Rule 099.13 (2025 Lexis Replacement)). The respondents filed a motion to dismiss this claim without prejudice for lack of prosecution and brief in support thereof (MTD) on June 9, 2025. (Respondents’ Exhibit 1 at 4-7). In accordance with the applicable law the claimant was provided due and legal notice of both the respondents’

Reggie Tucker, AWCC No. H407791 2 MTD as well as the date, time, and place of the MTD hearing on two (2) separate occasions which he received on June 14, 2025, and July 14, 2025. (Commission Exhibits 1 & 2). Thereafter, the claimant failed and/or refused to respond to the respondents’ motion in any way, or to appear at the subject hearing. The record herein consists of the hearing transcript and any and all exhibits contained therein and attached thereto. DISCUSSION Consistent with Ark. Code Ann.§ 11-9-702(a)(4) (2025 Lexis Replacement), as well as our court of appeals’ ruling in Dillard vs. Benton County Sheriff’s Office, 87 Ark. App. 379, 192 S.W.3d 287 (Ark. App. 2004), the Commission scheduled and conducted a hearing on the respondents’ MTD. Rather than recite a detailed analysis of the record, suffice it to say the preponderance of the evidence introduced at the hearing and contained in the record conclusively reveals the claimant has failed and/or refused to either actively prosecute his claim, or to request a hearing within the last six (6) months. Therefore, after a thorough consideration of the issues at bar, the applicable law as applied to the facts of this claim, and other relevant matters of record including the representations of credible counsel, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. 2. After having received due and legal notice of both the respondents’ MTD without prejudice filed with the Commission on June 9, 2025, as well as due and legal notice of the date, time, and place of the subject hearing, the claimant failed and/or refused to respond to the MTD in any way and failed and/or refused to appear at the subject hearing. 3. The claimant has not requested a hearing within the last six (6) months and has taken no action(s) to raise any issues related to or to prosecute this claim.

Reggie Tucker, AWCC No. H407791 3 4. Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence compels the decision the respondents’ MTD without prejudice filed June 9, 2025, should be and hereby is GRANTED; and this claim is dismissed without prejudice to its refiling pursuant to the deadlines prescribed by Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-9-702(a) and (b) and 11 C.A.R. 25-110(d) (formerly cited as Commission Rule 099.13). If they have not already done so, the respondents hereby are ordered to pay the court reporter’s invoice within twenty (20) days of their receipt thereof. IT IS SO ORDERED. ____________________________ Mike Pickens Administrative Law Judge MP/mp

Reggie Tucker, AWCC No. H407791 4