BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G JOSEPH RAMEY, EMPLOYEE OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 12, 2016

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G JOSEPH RAMEY, EMPLOYEE MILAM OIL CONSTRUCTION (EMPLOYER) CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY INSURANCE CARRIER CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 12, 2016 This matter was submitted on the record before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CHANDRA L. BLACK, on February 12, 2016, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. The claimant is pro se. Respondents are represented by Ms. Carolyn Harder, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This matter comes before me for the purpose of dealing with the respondents Motion to Dismiss and to determine whether the above-referenced matter should be dismissed for want of prosecution, pursuant to Dillard v. Benton County Sheriff s Office, 87 Ark. App. 379, 192 S.W. 3d 287 (2004). The record consists of the Commission s entire file. This is incorporated herein by reference. DISCUSSION The claimant filed a Form AR-C, with the Commission on August 25, 2015, alleging an injury date of November 12, He asserted an injury to his back as a result of an event 1

2 involving the installation of some valves at Great Lakes Central Plant. In the Form AR-C, the claimant requested both initial and additional, by checking all of the boxes for said benefits. It appears that Milam Oil Construction controverted the claim in its entirety. Specifically, they contended that the claimant did not sustain a compensable occupational disease or repetitive trauma injury during and in the course of his employment with them. The employer-respondent further contended that they had no knowledge of the claimant being injured on November 12, 2013, and that his employment with them was terminated in February of They disputed both indemnity and medical benefits. Pursuant to a letter dated August 21, 2015, Mr. Greg Giles advised the Commission that he had agreed to represent and assist the claimant as a result of the injuries he sustained to his back on November 12, Mr. Giles also filed the aforementioned Form AR-C on behalf of the claimant. At that time, Mr. Giles requested a payment history from the respondents. However, on December 31, 2015, Mr. Giles wrote to the Clerk of the Commission, Ms. Carolyn Washington, advising of his request to voluntarily withdraw as the attorney for the claimant in this matter. As a result, on January 20, 2016, the Full Commission entered an Order relieving Mr. Giles as counsel of record in this matter. 2

3 On January 27, 2016, the respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss in this matter with a Certificate of Service to the claimant. In its Motion to Dismiss, the respondents alleged, among other things, that Claimant cannot present adequate proof in this matter to support a finding of weekly benefits or medical benefits. Hence, they controverted this claim in its entirety. The respondents further contended the claimant has failed to prosecute this claim. Therefore, the respondents maintained that they are entitled to a dismissal under Rule Next, on January 29, 2016, the Commission sent a Notice to the claimant advising of the respondents Motion to Dismiss, and of a fifteen-day-deadline for filing a response to said Motion. In a letter filed with the Commission on February 1, 2016, the claimant stated that he had no objection to the Motion to Dismiss. Commission Rule provides: The Commission may, in its discretion, postpone or recess hearings at the instance of either party or on its own motion. No case set for hearing shall be postponed except by approval of the Commission or Administrative Law Judge. In the event neither party appears at the initial hearing, the case may be dismissed by the Commission or Administrative Law Judge, and such dismissal order will become final unless an appeal is timely taken therefrom or a proper motion to reopen is filed with the Commission within thirty (30) days from receipt of the order. 3

4 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. (Effective March 1, 1982) A review of the evidence shows that the claimant has had ample opportunity to prosecute this claim for both initial and additional benefits, but has failed to do so. In the present matter, I find that all parties had reasonable notice of the pending motion to dismiss. In fact, the claimant has advised the Commission, in writing that he does not object to this matter being dismissed. After consideration of the evidence presented, I find the respondents Motion to be well taken. Therefore, pursuant to Rule , I hereby dismiss this claim, without prejudice to the refiling within the applicable time period. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW On the basis of the record as a whole, I make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann The Arkansas Workers Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. 2. The respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute, with the Commission on January 27, In a letter filed with the Commission on February 4

5 1,2016, the claimant advised the Commission that he does not object to the Motion to Dismiss his claim. 4. That respondents Motion to Dismiss should be granted for failure to prosecute pursuant Rule , to the refiling of the claim within the applicable time period. ORDER Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, I have no alternative but to dismiss this claim for initial and additional benefits in its entirety. This dismissal is pursuant to Rule , without prejudice to the refiling of this claim within the applicable time period. IT IS SO ORDERED. CB/dr CHANDRA L. BLACK Administrative Law Judge 5

6 February 12, 2016 Mr. Joseph Ramey 424 Elerson Drive El Dorado, AR Ms. Carolyn Harder Attorney at Law 425 West Capitol Avenue, Ste Little Rock, AR RE: Joseph Ramey v. Milam Oil Construction WCC No. G Dear Mr. Ramey and Ms. Harder: Enclosed is a copy of an an Opinion filed in the above-captioned workers' compensation claim. Sincerely, Chandra L. Black CHANDRA L. BLACK Administrative Law Judge Enclosure 6