{"id":"alj-H108679-2024-06-24","awcc_number":"H108679","decision_date":"2024-06-24","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Pamela Murphy","employer_name":null,"title":"MURPHY VS. AMERICAN PAPER AND TWINE CO.AWCC# H108679June 24, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:8","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["wrist","shoulder","back"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Murphy_Pamela_H108679_20240624.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Murphy_Pamela_H108679_20240624.pdf","text_length":7832,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H108679 \n \nPAMELA MURPHY, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nAMERICAN PAPER AND TWINE CO., \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \nACCIDENT FUND GENERAL INS. CO., \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                    RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED JUNE 24, 2024 \n \nHearing conducted on Wednesday, June 12, 2024, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission  (the  Commission),  Administrative  Law  Judge  (ALJ) Steven  Porch,  in Little  Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant, Ms. Pamela Murphy was Pro Se, of Greenbrier, Arkansas, and did not appear in \nperson at the hearing.  \n \nThe Respondents  were  represented  by  the Honorable Karen  McKinney,  Little  Rock,  Arkansas. \nMs. McKinney’s law partner Jarrod Parrish argued the motion. \n \n \nBACKGROUND \n \n  This  matter  comes  before  the  Commission  on  a  Motion  to  Dismiss  by  Respondents.  A \nhearing was conducted on June 12, 2024, in Little Rock, Arkansas. No testimony was taken in the \ncase. \nThe  Claimant  worked  for  the  Respondent/Employer  as  a driver. Admitted  into  evidence \nwas Respondent  Exhibit  1, Motion  to  Dismiss  with  attached  exhibits,  consisting  of  nine  pages; \nRespondents Exhibit 2,  Pamela Murphy letter dated February 13, 2024, consisting of one page; \nRespondent Exhibit 3, Preliminary notice, consisting of two pages; Respondents Exhibit 4, Notice \nof  Motion  to  Dismiss,  consisting  of  two  pages;  Commission  Exhibit  1, correspondence,  and \ncertified return receipt, consisting of five pages. I have also blue-backed Form AR-1, Form AR-2, \n\nMURPHY, AWCC No. H108679 \n \n2 \n \nForm  AR-C, email  from  Claimant  and  Response  from  Melanie  Miller  dated  April  16,  2024, as \ndiscussed infra. \nThe  record  reflects on October 28, 2021,  a  Form AR-1 was  filed  with  the  Commission.  \nThis form reflects that Claimant allegedly tripped over a dolly and fell out of a truck and possibly \nbroke her wrist. This alleged injury was reported to the Respondent/Employer on the same day. \nOn November 4, 2021, Respondents filed a Form AR-2 with no statement of position as to whether \nthey were accepting or controverting the claim. Claimant on April 15, 2022, filed a Form AR-C, \nthrough  her then-attorney,  Laura  Beth  York. The Form  AR-C further  alleged  that  the  injury \noccurred while Claimant was making a delivery. The form also alleged she sustained injuries to \nher right arm, right shoulder, left lung, ribs on the left side, left side of stomach, and other whole \nbody. Attorney Karen McKinney entered her appearance on behalf of the Respondents on May 2, \n2022. \nThe Claimant  filed  for  a  change  of  physician  on March  27,  2023.  There, the  Claimant \nwanted to be transferred from Dr. Brent Walker to Dr. Krishnappa Prasa. This request was granted \non April 11, 2023. Claimant’s counsel next filed a Motion to Withdraw on October 5, 2023. The \nmotion references several unsuccessful attempts to reach the Claimant regarding the motion. The \nFull-Commission  granted  the  Motion  to  Withdraw  on October  24,  2023. Respondents’ counsel \nfiled a Motion to Dismiss on January 9, 2024. The motion states that the Claimant has not requested \na hearing in over six months. A copy of the motion was sent to the Claimant via certified mail on \nJanuary 25,  2024. On  March  1,  2024,  Claimant  sent  correspondence  objecting  to  the  Motion  to \nDismiss and requesting a hearing. The Motion to Dismiss was held in abeyance and Prehearing \nQuestionnaire documents were sent out on March 20, 2024. Claimant’s Preliminary Notice was \ndue April 4, 2023, and her Prehearing Questionnaire was due on April 9, 2024. The Claimant was \n\nMURPHY, AWCC No. H108679 \n \n3 \n \nmade aware in an email dated April 10, 2024, that she was past her due date for these documents; \nand if she does not submit them by noon, April 12, 2024, that I would be moving forward with \nRespondents’ Motion to Dismiss. The Claimant did not complete and submit either document by \nthat deadline. \nTherefore,  another  letter  making  her  aware  of  the  Motion  to  Dismiss  was  sent  to  the \nClaimant on April 15, 2024. Claimant, in an unexpected  email dated April 16, 2024, stated she \nwas in Florida tending to her sick father who died four days after her arrival to the state. She made \nme aware that she is ready to get back on track. After extending condolences, I agreed to extend \nher filing time for the prehearing documents to  April 30, 2024. In the interim, the notice of the \nMotion to Dismiss was received by Claimant, via certified U.S. Mail, on April 18, 2024. She did \nnot respond to the notice within twenty days and since then failed to file the overdue prehearing \ndocuments. \nThus, in accordance with applicable Arkansas law, the Claimant was mailed due and proper \nlegal notice of the Motion to Dismiss hearing notice at her current address of record via the United \nStates Postal Service (USPS), First Class Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular \nFirst-Class Mail on May 10, 2024. The certified notice was not claimed by the Claimant, but the \nnotice sent regular First-Class Mail did not come back to the Commission. The hearing took place \non June 12, 2024.  \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \nTherefore,  after  a  thorough  consideration  of  the  facts, issues,  the  applicable  law,  and  the \nevidentiary record, I hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: \n \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n\nMURPHY, AWCC No. H108679 \n \n4 \n \n2. The Claimant and Respondents both had reasonable notice of the June 12, 2024, \nhearing. \n \n3. Respondents have proven by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has \nfailed to prosecute his claim under AWCC Rule 099.13.  \n \n4. The Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \n \n5. This claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice.     \n \nDISCUSSION \n Consistent with AWCC Rule 099.13, the Commission scheduled and conducted a hearing, \nwith proper notice, on the Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss. The  Claimant  was  given  every \nreasonable opportunity to prosecute her case and has failed to do so. Claimant’s actions run counter \nto AWCC Rule 099.13.  \nAWCC Rule 099.13 allows the Commission, upon meritorious application, to dismiss an \naction pending before it due to a want of prosecution. The Claimant requested a hearing and has \nnot  satisfied  the  basic  requirements  for  such  a  request,  i.e.  the  filing  of  prehearing  documents. \nDespite granting  her  more  time,  on  at  least  two  different  occasions, to  file  her  prehearing \ndocuments, the Claimant has not pushed her Claim forward. Based on the foregoing, I do find the \nRespondents have proven by  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  Claimant  has  failed  to \nprosecute her claim. And as a result, Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\nMURPHY, AWCC No. H108679 \n \n5 \n \nCONCLUSION \n Based  on  the Findings  of Fact  and Conclusions  of Law set forth above, Respondents’ \nMotion to Dismiss is granted and this claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice. \n \n      IT IS SO ORDERED.  \n \n \n                                                                                               ______________________________ \n                                                                                               Steven Porch \n                                                                                               Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H108679 PAMELA MURPHY, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT AMERICAN PAPER AND TWINE CO., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ACCIDENT FUND GENERAL INS. CO., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JUNE 24, 2024 Hearing conducted on Wednesday, June 12, 2024, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensat...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:53:07.257Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H108679-2024-06-24","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Murphy_Pamela_H108679_20240624.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}