{"id":"alj-G607898-2023-05-11","awcc_number":"G607898","decision_date":"2023-05-11","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Louise Anderson","employer_name":"University Of Arkansas For Medical Sciences","title":"ANDERSON VS. UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES AWCC# G607898 MAY 11, 2023","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:7","granted:4"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//ANDERSON_LOUISE_G607898_20230511.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"ANDERSON_LOUISE_G607898_20230511.pdf","text_length":6331,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. G607898 \n \nLOUISE ANDERSON, EMPLOYEE  CLAIMANT \n \nUNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES, \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                RESPONDENT  \n \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA                                   RESPONDENT  \n \n \nOPINION FILED MAY 11, 2023 \n \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge  Steven Porch on May 9, 2023 in Little Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se. \n \nThe  Respondents  were  represented  by  Mr.  Charles  McLemore,  Attorney  at  Law,  Little \nRock, Arkansas. \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This  matter  comes  before  the  Commission  on  a  Motion  to  Dismiss  filed  by \nRespondents.  A hearing on the motion was conducted on May 9, 2023, in Little Rock, \nArkansas.  Claimant, who is pro se, did appear.  Respondents were represented at the \nhearing by Mr. Charles McLemore, Attorney at Law, of Little Rock, Arkansas.  In addition \nto Respondent’s argument, the record consists of the Commission’s file–which has been \nincorporated herein in its entirety by reference and Respondents’ Exhibit 1. \n The evidence reflects that per the First Report of Injury or Illness, Form AR-1, was \nfiled on August 17, 2015, Claimant purportedly injured her right leg at work on August 16, \n2015 when a gurney carrying a deceased man collapsed on Claimant’s right leg causing \na contusion.  The collapse of the gurney resulted in the corpse rolling on top of Claimant \nfor an undisclosed amount of time until other employees removed it from on top of her. \n\nANDERSON – G607898 \n \n \n2 \nAccording  to  Form  AR-2  that  was  filed  on  November  2,  2016,  Respondents  accepted \nClaimant’s leg injury as compensable.  Claimant was unable to secure legal counsel to \nrepresent  her on this  claim  when  the  injury  occurred  and  when  the  Motion  to  Dismiss \nhearing was first scheduled. Since the accident in August 16, 2015,  this case has been \ninactive  until  Respondents  filed  a  Motion  to  Dismiss  due  to  the  lack  of  prosecution.  A \nhearing was set for May 9, 2023, in Little Rock, Arkansas on the Motion to Dismiss. The \nhearing took place as scheduled. \nAt the hearing and as previously stated, the Claimant did appear and testify. When \nasked  why  it  has  taken  approximately  eight  years  to  prosecute  this  claim,  Claimant \nresponded that she was waiting on information from her employer as to how the case was \ngoing. Claimant also stated that she was waiting to hear from the Commission regarding \nthe status of her claim. Claimant’s husband, Timothy Anderson, testified, that he assisted \nClaimant  with  completing  Form  AR-C.  Timothy  Anderson  further  testified that  he  just \nforgot about the claim but would periodically ask Claimant how the claim was going. In \nessence, I find that Claimant did not know what they were doing and decided to wait to \nhear from the Claimant’s employer or the Commission to figure out their next steps. The \nClaimant did not know how to push or prosecute her claim. But ignorance of the law is no \nexcuse. Pro  se  litigants  are  held  to  the  same  standards  as  licensed  attorneys.    E.g., \nArnold  v.  Pitts,  2020  Ark.  App.  549,  2020  Ark.  App.  LEXIS  615  (2020).  Respondents \nargued for dismissal under Rule 13. \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After  reviewing  the  record  as  a  whole  and  other  matters  properly  before  the \nCommission, and having had an opportunity to hear the sworn testimony of the Claimant, \n\nANDERSON – G607898 \n \n \n3 \nI  hereby  make  the following findings of fact and  conclusions  of  law  in accordance  with \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Commission  has  jurisdiction  over  this \nclaim. \n2. All parties received reasonable and timely notice of the Motion to Dismiss and the \nhearing thereon pursuant to AWCC R. 099.13. \n3. Respondents  did  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  Claimant has \nfailed to prosecute his claim under AWCC R. 099.13. \n4. The Motion to Dismiss should be, and hereby is, granted. \nIII.  DISCUSSION \n AWCC 099.13 provides: \nUpon  meritorious  application  to  the  Commission  from  either  party  in  an \naction  pending  before  the  Commission,  requesting  that  the  claim  be \ndismissed for want of prosecution, the Commission may, upon reasonable \nnotice  to  all  parties,  enter  an  order  dismissing  the  claim  for  want  of \nprosecution. \n \nSee generally Johnson v. Triple T Foods, 55 Ark. App. 83, 85, 929 S.W.2d 730 (1996).   \nUnder  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-705(a)(3)  (Repl.  2012),  Respondents  must  prove  by  a \npreponderance  of  the  evidence  that  dismissal  should  be  granted.  The  standard \n“preponderance of the evidence” means the evidence having greater weight or convincing \nforce.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 S.W.3d 415; Smith v. Magnet Cove Barium \nCorp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947). \n A claimant’s testimony is never considered uncontroverted.  Nix v. Wilson World \nHotel,  46  Ark.  App.  303,  879  S.W.2d  457  (1994).  The  determination  of  a  witness’ \ncredibility and how much weight to accord to that person’s testimony are solely up to the \n\nANDERSON – G607898 \n \n \n4 \nCommission. White v. Gregg Agricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001).  \nThe Commission must sort through conflicting evidence and determine the true facts.  Id.  \nIn so doing, the Commission is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant or \nany other witness but may accept and translate into findings of fact only those portions of \nthe testimony that it deems worthy of belief.  Id. \n After consideration of all the evidence, I find that Claimant and Respondents were \ngiven reasonable notice of the Motion to Dismiss hearing under Rule 13. I further find that \nClaimant has abridged this rule. Thus, I find Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss should be \ngranted without prejudice. \nCONCLUSION \n Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, Respondents’ \nMotion to Dismiss is hereby granted without prejudice. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n      ________________________________ \n      STEVEN PORCH \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G607898 LOUISE ANDERSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 11, 2023 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge Steven Porch on ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:07:28.323Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-G607898-2023-05-11","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//ANDERSON_LOUISE_G607898_20230511.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}