{"id":"alj-G605091-2023-02-22","awcc_number":"G605091","decision_date":"2023-02-22","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Patricia Kizzire","employer_name":"Petrus Stuttgart, Inc","title":"KIZZIRE VS. PETRUS STUTTGART, INC. AWCC# G605091 FEBRUARY 22, 2023","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:4","granted:2"],"injury_keywords":["knee"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//KIZZIRE_PATRICIA_G605091_20230222.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"KIZZIRE_PATRICIA_G605091_20230222.pdf","text_length":5665,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO. G605091 \n \nPATRICIA G. KIZZIRE, EMPLOYEE            CLAIMANT \n \nPETRUS STUTTGART, INC. EMPLOYER           RESPONDENT  \n \nCENTRAL ARKANSAS AUTO DEALERS SIF/ \nRISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, CARRIER/TPA                      RESPONDENTS #1 \n \nDEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY TRUST FUND            RESPONDENT #2  \n \nOPINION FILED FEBRUARY 22, 2023 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge  JayO.  Howe  in  Little  Rock,  Pulaski \nCounty, Arkansas, on January 10, 2023. \n \nMr. Gary Davis, Attorney-at-Law of Little Rock, Arkansas, appeared on behalf of the \nclaimant.\n1\n \n \nMs.  Karen  H.  McKinney,  Attorney-at-Law  of  Little  Rock,  Arkansas,  appeared  on \nbehalf of the respondent/employer. \n \nThe Trust Fund waived appearance. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A hearing was held in the above-styled matter on January 10, 2023, in Little Rock, \nArkansas, on  respondent’s  Motion  to  Dismiss  for  failure  to prosecute  pursuant  to \nArkansas  Code  Annotated §  11-9-702  and/or Rule  099.13  of  the  Arkansas  Workers’ \nCompensation  Act.    The  claim  involves  a  compensable  knee  injury,  which  allegedly \noccurred on or about December 21, 2015.  An employer/employee relationship existed at \nthe  time.  A  First  Report  of  Injury  was  filed  on  July  19,  2016,  in  which  respondents \naccepted as compensable, an injury to claimant’s right knee. \n \n1\n As noted in the respondents’ motion, Mr. Davis filed with the Commission a Motion to \nWithdraw as Counsel on April 27, 2021, and that motion was granted on May 19, 2021. \nHaving been formally relieved of representing the claimant, he nonetheless appeared to \nassist the claimant in resisting the motion at bar. \n\nKIZZIRE – G605091 \n \n2 \n \n The claimant filed an AR-C on November 28, 2017, requesting initial and additional \nbenefits.  In an August 14, 2000, Opinion, the Full Commission found that the respondents \nproperly compensated the claimant and that she could not prove a compensable injury to \nher left knee. No further appeal was taken. \nAt  bar  is  the  respondents’  October  12,  2023,  Motion  to  Dismiss  for  lack  of \nprosecution. A hearing was held at 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday, January 10, 2023, in regard \nto that motion.  A review of the file does not reveal a response from the claimant to the \nMotion,   but   she   appeared   for   the   hearing   and   was   represented   by   Mr.   Davis. \nRespondents asserted that there are no issues to justify an open file and that more than \nsix  (6)  months  have  passed  without  a  request  for  a  hearing  on  any  issue.  (Tr.5) \nRespondents acknowledged an outstanding billing issue, but put on the record that they \nare willing to pay any bill appropriately submitted.\n2\n Id.  \nClaimant did not argue against or present evidence controverting the respondents’ \ncontention that no hearing was requested for at least six (6) months before the filing of \ntheir  motion.  Instead,  claimant  asserts  concern  around  a  bill  or  some  bills  that  were \ncharged  by  mistake  to  Medicare  instead  of  the  respondents  (Tr.7),  as  noted  by  the \nrespondents’  counsel.  As  stated  above,  however,  the  respondents  made  good  faith \nrepresentations  that  any  outstanding billing  issues  will  be addressed appropriately  and \nin-line with their obligations under the law. \n \n2\n While it is not part of the record, the respondents’ counsel echoed, via a January 11, 2023, \nemail, their willingness to fulfill their payment responsibilities with regard to the billing \nissue discussed at the hearing. Counsel stated: \n My client is agreeable to pay what is owed for the compensable right knee.  \n We are requesting a conditional payment search from CMS and will go from \n there. If the Conditional Payment search does not or cannot separate the right \n and left knee charges, we will contact the provider and request rebilling for \n those services. \n\nKIZZIRE – G605091 \n \n3 \n \n Based  on  the  record,  testimony,  and  evidence,  I  am  compelled  to  find  that  the \nMotion to Dismiss should be granted due to the claimant’s lack of prosecution and the \nmatter should be dismissed without prejudice.\n3\n  Should the respondents fail or refuse to \nremit payment on properly submitted charges, the claimant may request a hearing for the \nenforcement of the respondents’ obligations. \nORDER \n Pursuant to the above, there is no alternative but to find that the Motion to Dismiss \nshould be granted and this matter should be dismissed without prejudice at this time.   \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n      ____________________________ \n       JAYO. HOWE \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE   \n   \n \n \n \n \n3\n As noted in FN 1, Mr. Davis appeared to assist in advancing the claimant’s opposition to \ndismissal. I gathered, without explicitly asking, that Mr. Davis had other business before \nthe Commission on the day of this hearing and either offered or agreed to step in after \neither recognizing his former client or being asked to do so by the same. Regardless of how \nhe came to be in the room, it is not relevant to the issue before me now. I only make note to \nacknowledge an understanding, or at least a notion, that an ongoing attorney-client \nrelationship may not exist. And for that reason, I offer the following for the claimant’s \nbenefit towards a possibly better understanding of the nature of a dismissal without \nprejudice: \n \nFrom Black’s Law Dictionary (9\nth\n ed. 2009), a dismissal without prejudice means a case is \n“removed from the [Commission’s] docket in such a way that the [claimant] may refile the \nsame [issue] on the same claim.”","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G605091 PATRICIA G. KIZZIRE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT PETRUS STUTTGART, INC. EMPLOYER RESPONDENT CENTRAL ARKANSAS AUTO DEALERS SIF/ RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENTS #1 DEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY TRUST FUND RESPONDENT #2 OPINION FILED FEBR...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:10:30.914Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-G605091-2023-02-22","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//KIZZIRE_PATRICIA_G605091_20230222.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}