Mitchell, 031621 ARWC, G600426

• Case Date: March 16, 2021
• Court: Kansas

ALFRED L. MITCHELL, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NO. 1 ARK. SCHOOL BOARDS ASS’N WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT NO. 1 STATE OF ARKANSAS, DEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY TRUST FUND RESPONDENT NO. 2 No. G600426 Arkansas Workers Compensation Before the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission March 16, 2021          Hearing conducted on Tuesday, March 16, 2021, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (the Commission), Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mike Pickens, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.           The claimant, Mr. Alfred L. Mitchell, pro se, of North Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, failed and/or refused to appear at the hearing.           Respondent No. 1 was represented by the Honorable Guy Alton Wade, Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.           Respondent No. 2, represented by the Honorable David L. Pake, State of Arkansas, Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission, Special Funds Division, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, waived its appearance at the hearing.           Mike Pickens, Administrative Law Judge.          STATEMENT OF THE CASE          A hearing was conducted on Tuesday, March 16, 2021, to determine whether this claim should be dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(a)(4) (2020 Lexis Replacement), and Commission Rule 099.13 (2020 Lexis Replacement). On December 9, 2020, Respondent No. 1’s attorney filed an entry of appearance and motion to dismiss without prejudice for lack of prosecution letter with the Commission. On Wednesday, January 13, 2021, a hearing was conducted on Respondent No. 1’s letter motion to dismiss without prejudice. By letter to the parties dated January 14, 2021, the ALJ advised them he would hold consideration of Respondent No. 1’s motion in abeyance for 30 days in order to allow Mr. Mitchell time to retain the services of an attorney in this claim. Having not heard from either Mr. Mitchell or his attorney within this 30-day period, this hearing was scheduled to consider the merits of Respondent No. 1’s letter motion to...