Whitney Scruggs vs. Express Services, Inc

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H306164 WHITNEY SCRUGGS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT EXPRESS SERVICES, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT AIU INSURANCE COMPANY/ SEDGWICK CMS, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 27, 2026 Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. Claimant failed to appear. Respondents represented by the HONORABLE CAROL LOCKARD WORLEY, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Affirmed. OPINION AND ORDER The claimant, pro se, appeals an administrative law judge’s opinion and order filed November 26, 2025. The administrative law judge granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss without prejudice. After reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission affirms the administrative law judge’s opinion. I. HISTORY The record indicates that Whitney Scruggs, now age 44, became employed with the respondents, Express Services, Inc., on or about September 6, 2023. The record contains a “WORKERS COMPENSATION

SCRUGGS - H306164 2 – FIRST REPORT OF INJURY OR ILLNESS” prepared on September 21, 2023. The “FIRST REPORT OF INJURY OR ILLNESS” indicated that the claimant sustained a work-related injury to his chest and ribs on September 11, 2023. The record indicates that the respondent-carrier accepted the claim, and that the respondents provided a period of compensation beginning September 25, 2023. The claimant filed a Form AR-C, CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION on February 13, 2024. The ACCIDENT INFORMATION section of the Form AR-C indicated that the Date of Accident was September 11, 2023: “CLAIMANT INJURED MULTIPLE BODY PARTS, INCLUDING W/O LIMITATION, BACK, TAILBONE, RIBS, TOES, FACE, FINGERS.” The CLAIM INFORMATION section of the Form AR-C indicated that the claim was for “initial” benefits, including Temporary Total Disability, Temporary Partial Disability, Permanent Partial Disability, Permanent Total Disability, Rehabilitation, Attorney Fees, and Medical Expenses. The respondents filed motions to dismiss on August 20, 2024 and January 30, 2025. An administrative law judge filed an opinion on August 27, 2025. The administrative law judge determined in part: It is noted that appropriate notice was provided to the claimant notifying him of the hearing and that he was in fact present. The claimant again stated that he intended to pursue his claim. It is also noted that the claimant had failed to take any

SCRUGGS - H306164 3 action to pursue the claim since the previous Motion to Dismiss, although he did in fact appear at both Motion to Dismiss hearings. An administrative law judge entered an order on August 27, 2025 and took the respondents’ motions under advisement. The administrative law judge corresponded with the claimant on September 17, 2025 and stated among other things, that the claimant should submit a Prehearing Questionnaire to the Commission. The claimant did not appear at a hearing held on November 18, 2025. The administrative law judge filed an opinion on November 26, 2025. The administrative law judge ordered, “Pursuant to the above statement of the case, documents entered into the record, and statements by the Attorney for the Respondents, there is no alternative but to grant the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice pursuant to 11 C.A.R. 110(d) of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission and A.C.A. §11-9-702(a)(4).” The claimant appeals to the Full Commission. II. ADJUDICATION Commission Rule 099.13, now codified at 11 CAR §25-110, provides in pertinent part: (d) 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 the parties, enter an order dismissing the claim for want of prosecution.

SCRUGGS - H306164 4 The purpose of Commission Rule 099.13 is to permit the claimant to resist dismissal of the claim and to show, if he can, why the application for dismissal is without merit. Dura Craft Boats, Inc. v. Daugherty, 247 Ark. 125, 444 S.W.2d 562 (Ark. 1969). The Full Commission finds in the present matter that the respondents’ motion to dismiss is meritorious. The claimant states on appeal that he did not receive notice of the November 18, 2025 hearing, asserting that he was incarcerated from September 11, 2025 through January 13, 2026. The claimant presents no corroborating proof of his incarceration during this period. Moreover, the claimant previously filed a Form AR-C, CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION on February 13, 2024. The evidence does not demonstrate that the claimant made a bona fide request for a hearing within six (6) months of the filing of the claim for compensation, as is required by Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702(a)(4)(Repl. 2012). Nor has the claimant yet taken any substantive action or made a good faith effort to present medical records or other probative evidence to the Commission throughout the length of the claim. The Commission finds that there is indeed a “want of prosecution” in the present matter. The Full Commission therefore affirms the administrative law judge’s order dismissing the claim without prejudice, in accordance with 11 CAR 25-110(d) and Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702(a)(4)(Repl. 2012).

SCRUGGS - H306164 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. ___________________________________ SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman ___________________________________ M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner ___________________________________ MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner