{"id":"alj-H104834-2023-04-06","awcc_number":"H104834","decision_date":"2023-04-06","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Kellis Hellums","employer_name":"Area Agency On Aging Western Arkansas","title":"HELLUMS VS. AREA AGENCY ON AGING WESTERN ARKANSAS AWCC# H104834 APRIL 6, 2023","outcome":"unknown","outcome_keywords":[],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HELLUMS_KELLIS_H104834_20230406.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"HELLUMS_KELLIS_H104834_20230406.pdf","text_length":10760,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n   \n CLAIM NO. H104834 \n \nKELLI S. HELLUMS, Employee                                                                                 CLAIMANT \n \nAREA AGENCY ON AGING WESTERN ARKANSAS, Employer                 RESPONDENT \n \nRISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, Carrier                                                  RESPONDENT \n \n OPINION FILED APRIL 6, 2023 \n \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Fort Smith, Sebastian \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by MATTHEW J. KETCHAM, Attorney, Fort Smith, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by MELISSA WOOD, Attorney, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n  \n On January 5, 2023, a prehearing conference was conducted with the attorneys for the parties. \nHowever,  a  prehearing  Order  was  not  entered.  Rather  than  schedule  this  matter  for  a  hearing,  the \nparties advised that a stipulated record should be submitted, along with a brief from each party setting \nforth its position on how the law applies to the stipulated facts. The stipulated facts and the briefs of \nthe parties are blue backed and made a part of the record. \n The stipulated facts of this case are as follows: \n 1.      The employer-employee  relationship  existed  on  8/6/20  when  claimant  sustained  a \ncompensable injury to her lower back. \n 2.     The claim was accepted as a medical-only claim. \n            3.     Claimant’s average weekly wage of $402.11 would entitle her to TTD/PPD benefits in \nthe amount of $268/$201 per week. \n            4.     The parties reached a settlement when claimant was unrepresented, and paperwork was \nsubmitted to the Commission on 6/10/21. \n\nHellums-H104834 \n2 \n \n \n 5.     Matt Ketcham notified the adjuster of his representation on 6/11/21 and later notified \nthe Commission of his appearance on 10/14/21. \n 6.     A joint petition hearing never took place, and the file was returned to general files on \n1/26/22. \n 7.     Claimant’s counsel was notified by letter dated 8/8/22 that the adjuster was closing her \nfile and was taking the position that the statute of limitations had run. \n 8.     Claimant filed a Form C with the Commission on 8/8/22, and no previous filings were \nmade before that date. \n 9.     The parties have no objection to the incorporation of the Commission’s file by reference, \nif needed. \n The issues presented to me on this stipulated record were: \n(1) Had the statute of limitation expired before claimant filed a Form C for benefits; and \n(2) Had  the  parties  reached  a  binding  agreement  to  settle  this  matter  by  joint  petition  before  the \nstatute of limitations had expired?  \nAll other issues were reserved by the parties.  \n From a review of the record as a whole, including the stipulated facts, the briefs of the parties, \nand other matters properly before the Commission, the following findings of fact and conclusions of \nlaw are made in accordance with A.C.A.§11-9-704: \n  FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n 1.   The stipulations submitted by the parties are hereby accepted as fact. \n 2.   The Form C filed by claimant was timely filed. \n 3.   There is no binding contract to resolve this matter by joint petition. \n   \n\nHellums-H104834 \n3 \n \n \n FACTUAL BACKGROUND \n Attached  to  her  brief,  claimant provided the  email  correspondence  her  attorney  had  with \ncounsel for the respondents.  A cursory glance through those emails revealed that some of those from \nrespondent contained a confidentiality notice.  While the Commission is not bound by technical or \nstatutory rules of evidence or by technical or formal rules of procedure, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a), \nStoker  v.  Thomas  Randal  Fowler,  Inc.,  2017  Ark.  App.  594, I believed it to be unfair to respondent’s \ncounsel  to  have  correspondence she  deemed  confidential included in claimant’s submission, and \ntherefore did not consider those emails so designated in deciding this matter. \nADJUDICATION \n \nA. Was claimant’s Form C filed after the statute of limitations had run?  \nClaimant’s date of injury was August 6, 2020, which would make the last date she could file   \n for benefits August 6, 2022.  Her Form C was filed on August 8, 2022.  While not included in the \nstipulations, I have taken judicial notice that August 6, 2022, was a Saturday and August 8, 2022, was \na Monday, see Buxton v. Nashville, 132 Ark. 511, 201 S.W. 512, (1918).  As such, this matter is governed \nby the decision of the Full Commission in Bundgard v. Wal-Mart, 2017 AR Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 104: \nIn  the  present  claim,  the  claimant's  two-year  statutory  period  for  filing  a \nclaim ended on a Sunday. Because the claimant could not file her claim on \nSunday,   she   waited   until   the   next   business   day   to   file   her   claim. \nConsequently,  the  Administrative  Law  Judge  found  that  the  claimant's \nstatute  of  limitations  for  filing  her  claim  had  run,  and  that  her  claim  was \nbarred  by  the  provisions  of  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-702  .  However,  Ark. \nCode Ann. § 11-9-702 does not address computation of time when the two-\nyear   statute   of   limitations   deadline   falls   on   a   weekend   or   holiday. \nFurthermore,  strict  construction  does  not  mandate a  literal  interpretation \nthat leads to absurd results where an alternative interpretation better effects \nthe statute's purpose. Robertson v. Pork Group, Inc., 2011 Ark. App. 448, 384 \nS.W.3d 639 (2011). \n \nIn a previous claim, the Court applied Rule 6 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil \nProcedure  in  computing  time  to  file  an  appeal.  See, Ashcraft  v.  Quimby,  2 \nArk. App. 174, 617 S.W.2d 390 (1981). Taking into consideration the time \n\nHellums-H104834 \n4 \n \n \nfor  mailing  a  pleading  as  contained  in  Rule  6,  the  court  found  that  the \nclaimant had filed a timely appeal. Id. \n \nIn  the  absence  of  express  statutory  language  addressing  computation  of \ntime  when  the  two-year  statutory  deadline  for  filing  a  claim fall  on  a \nweekend or holiday, combined with the sound guidance set forth in Ashcraft \nv.  Quimby,  supra,  for  us  to  disallow  the  claimant  in  the  present  claim  the \nliberty of filing her workers' compensation claim on the Monday following \nher statutory deadline, would lead to an absurd result. See Robertson v. Pork \nGroup, Inc., supra. Therefore, we find that the claimant's claim is not barred \nby the two-year statute of limitations set forth in Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n702. \n \nSince the Full Commission was satisfied that the logic behind Rule 6 of the Arkansas Rules of \nCivil Procedure should be applied to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702, and since the legislature has not seen \nfit to change the wording of that statute in the years since that decision, I am satisfied that the Form \nC filed on August 8, 2022 was timely.  \n B.   Did the parties have a binding contract to resolve this matter by joint petition? \n In reviewing the correspondence that was not labeled confidential, I saw numerous requests \nfrom respondents’ counsel to claimant’s attorney prior to August 6, 2022, asking for status updates \nand wondering if the matter could be set for the joint petition on the paperwork that was submitted \non June 10, 2021. On August 4, 2022, two days before the statute of limitations expired, Ms. Wood \nsent a letter to Mr. Ketcham, advising that the original offer to settle was still available.  After August \n6, 2022, respondent took the position that the statute of limitations barred any further action on this \nmatter, and no money was going to be paid to claimant to resolve this matter by joint petition.   \n On September 23, 2022, Mr. Ketcham sent this email to Ms. Wood, which reads, in pertinent \npart:  \n“When we last spoke, I had indicated to you that my client would accept \nthe offer previously extended and that had been on the table without \nrevocation.  You then indicated that you would have to check with your \nclient.  As I see it, the offer was accepted.” \n \n\nHellums-H104834 \n5 \n \n \n  \nWithin four minutes on the same day, Ms. Wood responded: \n“I sent a letter on 8/8, informing you that I was closing my file and that \nthe adjuster was filing the Form 4 because the statute of limitations had \nrun.  It was taken off the table at that time.”    \n \nWhile the letter of August 8, 2022, was not included in the exhibits attached to either brief, I \nam satisfied that Ms. Wood sent it as she said in her email; there was no response from Mr. \nKetcham protesting that he had not received it included in his exhibits to his brief.   \n Claimant’s position that there was a contract to settle fails for two reasons.  First, I have no \nevidence that the offer was accepted before August 8, 2022.  Mr. Ketcham’s email does not identify \nwhen the conversation he referred to in his September 23, 2022, email took place.  Mr. Ketcham filed \na Form C on claimant’s behalf on August 8, 2022, instead of requesting the joint petition be set for a \nhearing. I thus conclude that the offer had not been accepted at the time the Form C was filed, and \nthe conversation took place after August 8, 2022.  As I believe Ms. Wood communicated on August \n8, 2022, that she had closed her file because she believed the statute of limitations had expired, that \nwould serve as a revocation of the offer.   \n Second, unlike civil litigation in the circuit and district courts, an agreement between the parties \nto settle a matter is contingent upon the joint petition being approved by an administrative law judge.  \nA claimant is advised at the hearing that he or she can decline to complete the proposed settlement at \nany time before the order is signed.  At the hearing, the judge must determine not only if the settlement \nis in the best interest of the claimant, but also in the respondent’s best interest.  Claimant cited no \nauthority to support its contention that a binding contract to settle this matter existed; respondents’ \nreliance on Odom v. Tosco Corp., 12 Ark. App. 196 (1984) is appropriate under these circumstances.  \n \n\nHellums-H104834 \n6 \n \n \nORDER \n \n Claimant’s Form C which was filed on August 8, 2022 was timely, and therefore claimant is \nnot barred from pursuing a claim for benefits. \n The parties do not have a binding agreement to settle this matter, as workers’ compensation \nclaims cannot be settled without a hearing on a proposed joint petition, and because the greater weight \nof evidence supports the conclusion that the offer was withdrawn before claimant attempted to accept \nit.  \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n                                                                                              \n_______     \n JOSEPH C. SELF \nADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H104834 KELLI S. HELLUMS, Employee CLAIMANT AREA AGENCY ON AGING WESTERN ARKANSAS, Employer RESPONDENT RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 6, 2023 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Fort Smith, Sebastian ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:08:18.500Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H104834-2023-04-06","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HELLUMS_KELLIS_H104834_20230406.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}