{"id":"alj-H106771-2024-04-16","awcc_number":"H106771","decision_date":"2024-04-16","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Chelsea Johnson","employer_name":null,"title":"JOHNSON VS. OUACHITA COUNTY MEDICAL CENTERAWCC# H106771April 16, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:6","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/JOHNSON_CHELSEA_H106771_20240416.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"JOHNSON_CHELSEA_H106771_20240416.pdf","text_length":9628,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO.: H106771 \n \n \nCHELSEA JOHNSON, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                 CLAIMANT \n \nOUACHITA COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER,   \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT                                                                                                       \n \nAHA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION SIF, \nINSURANCE CARRIER                                                                                        RESPONDENT \n  \nRISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR                                                                     RESPONDENT  \n                       \n \nOPINION FILED APRIL 16, 2024   \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in El Dorado, Union County, \nArkansas. \n \nThe Claimant, pro se, did not appear at the hearing.  \n \nThe Respondents represented  by the  Honorable Melissa  Wood, Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n                                                         Statement of the Case      \n \n A hearing was held on February 7, 2024 in the present matter pursuant to Dillard v. Benton \nCounty Sheriff’s Office,  87  Ark.  App.  379,  192  S.W.  3d  287  (2004),  to  determine  whether  the \nabove-referenced matter should be dismissed for failure to prosecute under the provisions of Ark. \nCode  Ann. §11-9-702 (Repl.  2012), and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission  Rule \n099.13.  No testimony was taken at the hearing.   \n The record consists of the transcript of the February 7, 2024, hearing and the documents \nheld therein.  Admitted into evidence was Commission’s Exhibit 1 consisting of three pages, which \nwas  marked  accordingly, and the Respondents’ Hearing Exhibit consisting of fifteen numbered \npages was marked as Respondents’ Exhibit 1.  Additionally, in order to adequately address this \n\nJOHNSON – H106771 \n \n2 \n \nmatter  under  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-705(a)(1) (Repl. 2012)(Commission must “conduct the \nhearing  . . . in a manner which best ascertains the rights of the parties”), and without objection, I \nhave blue-backed  to  the  record,  four  totaled pages which  includes the  Form AR-2 and the  Full \nCommission’s order of July 11, 2023 relieving Claimant’s attorney as counsel of record in this \nmatter from the Commission’s file of this claim.  In accordance with Sapp v. Tyson Foods, Inc., \n2010  Ark.  App.  517,  ___  S.W.3d  ___,  these  documents  have  been  served  on  the  parties  in \nconjunction with this opinion. \n                                                           Background \n On February  17,  2023, the Claimant’s attorney filed with  the Commission a claim for \nArkansas workers’ compensation benefits by way of a Form AR-C.  The Claimant alleged that she \nsustained an injury to her lower back on November 3, 2021, while performing employment duties \nfor the respondent-employer.  Per this document, the Claimant said that her injury occurred while \napplying a wound VAC to a patient’s sacral area (she was adjusting and leaning), and as she turned \na certain way, she felt a sharp pain on her left side.  The Claimant’s attorney requested both initial \nand additional workers’ compensation benefits.  In  fact,  he checked  all  the  boxes  for  every \nconceivable benefit available under the law in connection with this claim. \n On August 23, 2021, the Respondents filed a Form AR-2 with the Commission accepting \nthis claim for a low back injury.  The Respondents have paid both medical and indemnity benefits \nto and on behalf of the Claimant in this matter. \n Since the filing of the Form AR-C, there was no request for a hearing filed by the Claimant \nin this matter.   \n The  Claimant’s  attorney filed  with  the  Commission  a  Motion  to  Withdraw from \nrepresenting the Claimant in this matter on June 29, 2023.  The Full Commission entered an order \n\nJOHNSON – H106771 \n \n3 \n \ngranting the Claimant’s attorney motion to withdraw from representing her in this matter on July \n11, 2023.   \n Since this time, there has been no bona fide action on the part of the Claimant to prosecute \nher claim for workers’ compensation benefits, or otherwise pursue a resolution to this matter.   \nAs  a  result,  on November  29, 2023,  the Respondents  filed with  the Commission a \nRespondents’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute, along with a Certificate of Service.  The \nRespondents notified the Claimant of their motion for dismissal by way of depositing a copy of \nthe pleading thereof in the United States Mail.  \nThe Commission sent a letter to the Claimant’s last known address with the Commission \non November 30, 2023, informing her of the Respondents’ motion for dismissal.  Said letter was \nsent via both first-class  and  certified  mail.  Per  this  correspondence, the  Claimant  was  given a \ndeadline of twenty days to file a written response to the Respondents’ motion. \nTracking information from the United States Postal Service shows that on December 16, \n2023, the above-mentioned certified letter was delivered to the Claimant’s home and left with an \nindividual.  The Signature and Recipient section of this document shows that the Claimant signed \nfor  delivery  of  this correspondence.   The proof  of  delivery receipt bears the Claimant’s printed \nname and her signature.  Moreover, the letter sent by first-class mail has not been returned to the \nCommission. \n Yet, there was no response from the Claimant.   \nTherefore, pursuant to a Notice of Hearing dated January 4, 2024, the Commission notified \nthe parties that a hearing was scheduled to address the Respondents’ motion to dismiss this claim \ndue to a lack of prosecution.  Said dismissal hearing was scheduled for February 7, 2024, at 9:00 \na.m., at the Union County Courthouse in El Dorado, Arkansas. \n\nJOHNSON – H106771 \n \n4 \n \nThe hearing notice was sent to the Claimant via both first-class and certified mail.  Tracking \ninformation received from the United States Postal Service shows that they were unable to find \nany delivery information in their records for this item.  However, the hearing notice sent to the \nClaimant via first-class mail has not been returned to the Commission.  \nStill, there was no response from the Claimant.  \n Subsequently, a hearing was in fact conducted on the Respondents’ motion for dismissal \nof this claim for a lack of prosecution as scheduled.  The Claimant did not appear at the dismissal \nhearing, and she has not responded to the notices of this Commission.  However, the Respondents \nappeared through their attorney and argued for dismissal of this claim due to a lack of prosecution.    \nThe Respondents pointed out that there is no record of a hearing ever being requested in \nthis matter.  As a result, the Respondents made the dismissal request.  Counsel for the Respondents \nalso pointed out that the Claimant has failed to appear at the hearing and has not objected to her \nclaim being dismissed.  Therefore, the Respondents asked for dismissal without prejudice.  \nThe  record  before  me proves  that the  Claimant has failed  to  prosecute  her claim  for \nworkers’ compensation benefits.  The Claimant has not ever requested a hearing since the filing of \nher claim.  She did not appear at the hearing to object to her claim being dismissed and she has not \nresponded to the notices of this Commission.   \nUnder these circumstances, I am compelled to find that the evidence preponderates that the \nClaimant has abandoned her claim for workers’ compensation benefits.  Therefore, per Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-702 and Rule 099.13 of this Commission, I find that this claim should be and is hereby \nrespectfully dismissed, without prejudice to the refiling of it with the limitation period specified \nby law.   \n \n\nJOHNSON – H106771 \n \n5 \n \n                              FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nOn  the  basis  of  the  record  as  a  whole,  I  hereby  make  the  following  findings  of  fact  and \nconclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1.        The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this \nclaim.  \n \n2. The Respondents filed with the Commission a motion for dismissal of this \nclaim due to a lack of prosecution, for which a hearing was held. \n \n3. The Claimant has not ever requested a hearing since the filing of her claim \nvia  the  Form  AR-C,  and  she  has  objected  to  her  claim  being  dismissed.  \nHence, the evidence preponderates that the Claimant has failed to prosecute \nher claim for workers’ compensation benefits.      \n \n4. Appropriate Notice of the dismissal hearing was attempted on all parties to \ntheir last known address, in the manner prescribed by law.    \n \n            5. The Respondents’ motion to dismiss this claim for a lack of prosecution is \nhereby granted, without prejudice, per Ark. Code  Ann. §11-9-702, and \nCommission Rule 099.13, to the refiling of it within the limitation period \nspecified by law.  \n \nORDER \n In accordance with the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, this claim \nis hereby dismissed pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 11-9-702, and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission  Rule 099.13, without  prejudice, to  the  refiling  of it, within the limitation  period \nspecified by law.  \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n                              _______________________________ \n               CHANDRA L. BLACK \n               Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H106771 CHELSEA JOHNSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT OUACHITA COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT AHA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION SIF, INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 16, 2024 Hearing ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:55:23.588Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H106771-2024-04-16","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/JOHNSON_CHELSEA_H106771_20240416.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}