{"id":"alj-H104834-2024-06-20","awcc_number":"H104834","decision_date":"2024-06-20","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Kelli Hellums","employer_name":null,"title":"HELLUMS VS. AREA AGENCY ON AGING WESTERN ARKANSASAWCC# H104834June 20, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["affirmed:1","dismissed:6"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HELLUMS_KELLI_H104834_20240620.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"HELLUMS_KELLI_H104834_20240620.pdf","text_length":5834,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO. H104834 \n \n \nKELLI S. HELLUMS, EMPLOYEE   CLAIMANT \n \nAREA AGENCY ON AGING WESTERN ARKANSAS, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nRISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES/.INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION/ORDER FILED JUNE 20, 2024 \n \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF, in Fort Smith, Sebastian \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant is represented by MATTHEW J. KETCHAM, Attorney, Fort Smith, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents are represented by MELISSA WOOD, Attorney, Little Rock, Arkansas \n \nOPINION/ORDER \n \nOn  March  15,  2024, respondents filed  a  Motion  to  Dismiss pursuant  to A.C.A.§11-9-702, \nalleging  that  it  had  been  more  than  six  months  since  claimant  filed  her  Form  AR-C  with  the \nCommission,  but  she  had  not  made  a  request  for  a  hearing during  that  time.    Respondents also \nrequested dismissal for failing to prosecute her claim pursuant to Commission Rule 099.13.   Claimant \nopposed the dismissal and a hearing on respondents’ motion was conducted on June 5, 2024.\n1\n \nA  review  of  the  chronology  of  events  in  this  matter  is  necessary  to  determine whether  the \nmotion should be granted.  On August 8, 2022, claimant filed Form AR-C, alleging a compensable \ninjury on August 6, 2020.   A request for a hearing and a prehearing questionnaire was filed by claimant \non November 29, 2022.  However, because the AR-C was filed two days after the two-year anniversary \n \n1\n Claimant was represented at the hearing by her counsel; she had a family emergency that required her to be out \nof state at the time of the hearing.  Her attorney did not intend to call her as a witness and asked that she be \nexcused, which I allowed. \n\nHellums-H104834 \n \n2 \n \nof the injury, respondents took the position that the matter was now barred by the statute of limitations \nand sought to have the matter dismissed as untimely.   \nThe parties submitted a stipulated record as to the facts. Guided by a previous opinion from \nthe Full Commission that applied Rule 6 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure to situations when \nthe statute of limitations expires on a weekend or a holiday,\n2\n  I determined that since August 6, 2022, \nwas a Saturday, the filing on August 8, 2022, was timely.  An order to that effect was entered on April \n6, 2023.  Respondent filed a timely appeal of that decision on May 4, 2023.  On February 14, 2024, \nthe Full Commission affirmed my ruling.  \nHaving reviewed the exhibits introduced at the present hearing, I find that this matter should \nnot  be  dismissed  under  either A.C.A.§11-9-702(a)(4) or Commission  Rule  099.13.  The  statute \nprovides: \n\"If, within six (6) months after the filing of a claim for compensation, no bona \nfide request for a hearing has been made with respect to the claim, the claim \nmay,  upon  motion  and  after  hearing,  be  dismissed  without  prejudice  to  the \nrefiling of the claim within limitation periods specified in subdivisions (a)(1)-\n(3) of this section.\" \n \nTo be sure, it was more than six months since claimant filed for her claim for initial benefits \n(August 8, 2022) and from her first request for a hearing (October 27, 2022) until respondents filed \nthe present Motion to Dismiss (March 15, 2024).  However, claimant was not able to proceed with \nher  claim  before  the  statute  of  limitations  defense  had  been  decided by  me,  and  then  affirmed  on \nappeal.     She  requested  a  hearing  on  April  15,  2024,  a  month  after  the  time  for  appealing  the Full \n \n2\n After that decision was rendered, administrative law judges were directed not to cite Full Commission opinions as \nprecedent.   \n\nHellums-H104834 \n \n3 \n \nCommission’s decision in her favor on the statute of limitations issue.\n3\n  As such, I find that her request \nfor a hearing is timely under the facts of this case.   \n Furthermore, I do not find that claimant’s inactivity in this matter before the AR-C was filed \ncan be counted against her under Commission Rule 099.13. which provides, in pertinent part: \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  the  parties,  enter  an  order  dismissing  the  claim  for  want  of \nprosecution.   \n \nThe  claim  was immediately accepted  as  compensable in  August  2020,  and claimant  was \nprovided medical benefits.  A joint petition was submitted to the Commission on June 14, 2021, but \nwas never finalized. As the statute of limitations was almost reached, a claim for benefits was finally \nfiled.  A plain reading of Rule 13 requires there be a claim for a dismissal to be entered; without a \nclaim, there is nothing to be dismissed.   I decline to find the time before the matter was filed should \nbe considered in determining whether there has been a “want of prosecution.”     \n Therefore, finding that nothing before the claim was filed is relevant to a determination \nthat claimant had failed to prosecute this matter, and that the delay since the claim was filed was due \nto litigation on the question of the application of the statute of limitations, it would be an improper \napplication of Commission Rule 13 and A.C.A.§11-9-702(a)(4), as well as an abuse of discretion, to \ndismiss this matter under this facts.  \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n      _______________________________________                                                                                    \n      JOSEPH C. SELF \n      ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE \n \n3\n At the hearing on the present motion, claimant’s attorney pointed out that respondent had 30 days following the \ndecision of the Full Commission to the Arkansas Court of Appeals.","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/.INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION/ORDER FILED JUNE 20, 2024 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF, in Fort ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:53:00.952Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H104834-2024-06-20","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HELLUMS_KELLI_H104834_20240620.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}