{"id":"alj-H107220-2024-04-11","awcc_number":"H107220","decision_date":"2024-04-11","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Maggie Huey","employer_name":null,"title":"HUEY VS. HOUNDS LOUNGE, LLCAWCC# H107220April 11, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:5","denied:2"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HUEY_MAGGIE_H107220_20240411.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"HUEY_MAGGIE_H107220_20240411.pdf","text_length":10509,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n  \n                                                        AWCC CLAIM NO.: H107220 \n \nMAGGIE HUEY,  \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                CLAIMANT                                                    \n \nHOUNDS LOUNGE, LLC,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                           RESPONDENT  \n \nFIRSTCOMP INSURANCE COMPANY,              \nINSURANCE CARRIER                                                                                       RESPONDENT \n \nMARKEL SERVICE, INCORPORATED,                                                                                       \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR(TPA)                                                         RESPONDENT \n \n \n OPINION FILED APRIL 11, 2024    \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n  \nThe Claimant, pro se, appeared at the hearing. \n \nThe Respondents represented by the Honorable Randy P. Murphy, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n                                                     STATEMENT OF THE CASE      \n \nThis  matter  comes  before  the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission per the \nRenewed Motion to Dismiss filed by the Respondents.  A hearing on the motion was conducted \nbefore this Commission on January 31, 2024, in Little Rock, Arkansas.  Thus, the sole issue for \ndetermination was whether  this initial claim for  workers’  compensation  benefits should  be \ndismissed due to the Claimant’s failure to prosecute it per the provisions provided under Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-702 (Repl. 2012), and/or Commission Rule 099.13. \n  The  record  consists  of  the January  31,  2024,  hearing transcript.  Also, admitted  into \nevidence was Respondents’ Exhibit 1, pleadings, correspondence and forms related to this claim, \n\nHUEY-H107220 \n \n2 \n \nconsisting of five numbered pages.  Furthermore, in order to adequately address this matter under \nArk. Code  Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(1) (Repl. 2012)(Commission must conduct the hearing  . . . in a \nmanner which best ascertains the rights of the parties”), and without objection, I have blue-backed \nto the record, a choice of forms, pleadings, and correspondence from the Commission’s file on the \nclaim, consisting of twenty-one pages.  Per Sapp v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2010 Ark. App. 517, ___ \nS.W.3d ___, these documents have been served on the parties in conjunction with this opinion. \nReasonable notice of the dismissal hearing was had on all the parties in the manner set by \nlaw.   Therefore,  the  hearing  proceeded  as  scheduled  on  January  31,  2024.   The  Claimant,  Ms. \nMaggie Huey, appeared at the hearing and was unrepresented.  Also, the Respondents appeared \nthrough counsel and argued for dismissal of the claim because the Claimant failed to move this \ncase to a hearing, and due her failure to comply with discovery, for example, her deposition, which \nwas set for November 13, 2023, but she failed to appear. \n FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After  reviewing  the  record  as  a  whole,  to  include  documents  and  other  matters  properly \nbefore the Commission, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law are hereby made in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this matter. \n2. The parties were provided reasonable notice of the Renewed Motion to Dismiss and of the \nhearing thereon. \n3. The  evidence  preponderates  that  Claimant has  failed  to  timely  pursue  her  claim  due  to \nunfortunate personal losses.  However, the Claimant is now ready to pursue her claim.  \n\nHUEY-H107220 \n \n3 \n \n4. The Respondents’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss is hereby respectfully denied on this claim \nfor initial workers’ compensation benefits. \n                            Background \nThe record reflects the following procedural history: \n The Claimant asserted her entitlement to Arkansas workers’ compensation benefits due to \nan alleged workplace injury on February 27, 2021.  But the Commission’s file does not reflect the \nClaimant filed a formal claim via a Form AR-C in this case.  That is the means for filing a “formal \nclaim,” a Form AR-C.  While a Form AR-1 was filed in this case, that does not suffice to instigate \na claim.  I recognize, however, that other means exist to file a claim for initial benefits other than \na Form AR-C.   \n In that regard, my review of the Commission’s file shows a document sufficient to be able  \nto constitute a filing of a claim for initial benefits under the factors cited above.  That document is  \nClaimant’s September 16, 2022, hearing request.  At that time, the Claimant wrote a lengthy letter  \nto the Commission making a claim in this matter for her alleged entitlement to Arkansas workers’  \ncompensation benefits.  Hence, this letter serves as a claim for initial benefits. \nTherefore,  on  or  about May 19, 2022, the Respondents filed  a  Form  AR-2  with  the \nCommission controverting liability for this claim.  Specifically,  the  Respondents  stated  the \ngrounds as thus: “Denying, as the accepted body part this claim is the sacrum/coccyx.  There is no \nmedical evidence that she sustained an injury to her sacrum/coccyx on February 27, 2021.” \nAlthough  the  Claimant  notified  her  employer  of  her  alleged  accidental  injury, as  noted \nabove, she did not file a formal claim with the Commission requesting benefits.  Consequently, \nthere was no  request  for  a  hearing  made  by  the  Claimant  with  respect  to  her alleged  accidental \ninjury.  \n\nHUEY-H107220 \n \n4 \n \nTherefore, on August 29, 2022, the Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to \nProsecute  with  the  Commission. On  September  16,  2022,  the  Claimant  wrote a  letter to  the \nCommission objecting to the motion to dismiss her claim, and to request benefits.   \nIt appears that a prehearing telephone conference was held with the parties on January 30, \n2023.  At that time, the Claimant requested additional time to retain legal counsel before moving \nforward on her claim.  This request was granted, and the file was returned to the Commission’s \ngeneral files. \nSubsequently,  the  Claimant  requested  a  hearing  on  the  claim.   A  prehearing  telephone \nconference  was  scheduled  for  July  19,  2023.    The  Respondents’  attorney  appeared for  the \ntelephonic  conference.   However,  I  tried  calling  the  Claimant  several  times,  but  she  was \nunreachable.  Therefore, I returned this claim to the Commission’s general files.  The Claimant \nsent an email to the Commission saying she had the time noted incorrectly on her calendar.  As \nsuch, the Claimant requested that the prehearing telephone conference be rescheduled.  This was \ndone.  The telephone conference was rescheduled for August 9, 2023.  At the time of the telephone \nconference, the Respondents’ attorney indicated that he wished to take the Claimant’s deposition \nand  possibly  explore  settlement  of  the  claim.  Therefore,  the  claim  was  returned  to  the \nCommission’s general files.     \nOn December  1, 2023,  the Respondents  filed  a Renewed  Motion  to Dismiss, with  the \nCommission accompanied by a certificate of service to the Claimant saying that they served a copy \nof the pleading on the Claimant by depositing a copy thereof with the United States Postal Service.  \nThe primary basis for the Respondents’ renewed motion for dismissal of this claim is due to the \nClaimant’s failure to appear for her deposition in November of 2023, and move forward with her \nclaim.   \n\nHUEY-H107220 \n \n5 \n \nNevertheless,  the  Commission  sent  a  letter to the  Claimant informing her of  the \nRespondents’ renewed motion on December 4, 2023.  The letter notice was sent via certified mail \nand first-class mail.  Per this letter, the Claimant was given twenty (20) days from the date of that \nletter to file a response to the motion.  \nThe letter-notice was mailed to the Claimant by first-class mail has not been returned to \nthe  Commission.  On  December  6,  2023,  an  agent  for  the  post  office  left  this  notice  with  an \nindividual at the Claimant’s home.  My review of the record proves that the Claimant signed for \ndelivery of this document.     \nOn January 4, 2024, the Commission mailed a Notice of Hearing to the Claimant stating \nthat a dismissal hearing was scheduled for January 31, 2024, in Little Rock, Arkansas.  The hearing \nnotice mailed to the Claimant by certified mail was delivered by the mail carrier to the Claimant’s \nhome on January 8, 2024, and left with an individual.  My review of the tracking document shows \nthat the Claimant signed for the hearing notice.  Of note, the notice of hearing sent to the Claimant \nvia first-class has not been returned to the Commission.  \nYet, there was no response from the Claimant.   \nConversely,  a hearing  was in  fact conducted on the Respondents’ renewed motion  to \ndismiss as scheduled.  The Respondents’ attorney asked that the claim be dismissed under Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-702 and Commission Rule 099.13 due to the Claimant’s failure to prosecute her \nclaim for workers’ compensation benefits.  Specifically, counsel noted that the Claimant did not \nappear at his office to have her deposition taken as arranged.   However, the Claimant objected to \nher  claim  being  dismissed.    She  attributed  her  failure  to  move  forward  with  a resolution  to her \nclaim to fact that she has been dealing with a lot of loss.  The Claimant indicated that she is willing \n\nHUEY-H107220 \n \n6 \n \nto have her deposition taken and work with counsel to possibly come to some type of resolution \nof her claim.         \nGiven these circumstances, I find that the Respondents’ most recent motion to dismiss this \nclaim should be respectfully denied at this time. \n                     Conclusion      \nPer the  foregoing findings  of fact  and conclusions  of law, the Respondents’ Renewed \nMotion to Dismiss this claim is respectfully denied. \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n   \n                                                                     ________________________________ \n                                                                                     CHANDRA L. BLACK  \n                                                    Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWCC CLAIM NO.: H107220 MAGGIE HUEY, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT HOUNDS LOUNGE, LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT FIRSTCOMP INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT MARKEL SERVICE, INCORPORATED, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR(TPA) RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 11, 2024 Hearing held ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:55:17.187Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H107220-2024-04-11","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HUEY_MAGGIE_H107220_20240411.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}