{"id":"alj-H201464-2024-07-30","awcc_number":"H201464","decision_date":"2024-07-30","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Richelle Wortham","employer_name":null,"title":"WORTHAM VS. ARCAREAWCC# H201464July 30, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:8"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WORTHAM_RICHELLE_H201464_20240730.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"WORTHAM_RICHELLE_H201464_20240730.pdf","text_length":2841,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO. H201464 \nRICHELLE WORTHAM, EMPLOYEE    CLAIMANT \n \nARCARE, EMPLOYER      RESPONDENT \n \nTRAVELORS INDEMNITY CO. OF AMERICA  \nTPA/CARRIER       RESPONDENT \n \n           \n \n \nOPINION FILED JULY 30, 2024 \n \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge James D. Kennedy in Batesville, \nArkansas, on July 24, 2024. \n \nClaimant is Pro Se and failed to appear. \n \nRespondents are represented by their attorney, Amy C. Markham, Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A hearing was held in the above styled matter on July 24, 2024, in Batesville, \nArkansas, in the Independence County Conference Room located in the basement of \nthe Independence County Court House, on respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to \n\nprosecute pursuant to A.C.A. 11-9-702 and Rule 099.13 of the Arkansas Workers’ \nCompensation Act.  The claimant did not appear.  Claimant had filed a Form AR – C on \nor about November 9, 2023, contending that she had injured herself with injuries that \nincluded her lower back and buttock and that these injuries occurred during the course \nand scope of her employment.  A First Report of Injury had been previously filed on \nFebruary 16, 2022, which provided there was no physical injury.  An AR – 2 was filed on \nor about February 18, 2022, which stated there was no injury per statutory definition.  \nClaimant’s deposition was later taken, and the claimant was notified at the end of the \ndeposition that a Motion to Dismiss was going to be filed.     \n A Motion to Dismiss was filed by the respondents on May 13, 2024, requesting \nthat the matter be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to A.C.A. 11-9-702(a) (4) \nand Rule 099.13.  The claimant has not requested a hearing to date and more than six \nmonths have passed since the filing of the original claim.     \n Appropriate notice was provided to the claimant notifying of a hearing on the \nMotion to Dismiss on July 24, 2024, in Batesville, Arkansas, and no response was filed \nby the claimant.  At the time of the hearing, Amy C. Markham appeared on behalf of the \nRespondents and asked that the matter be dismissed for lack of prosecution. \n After a review of the record as a whole, to include all evidence properly before \nthe Commission, and having an opportunity to hear the statements of the attorney for \nthe Respondents, it is found that this matter should be dismissed without prejudice, for \nfailure to prosecute pursuant to A.C.A. 11-9-702 and Rule 099.13 of the Arkansas \nWorkers’ Compensation Act. \n\nORDER \n Pursuant to the above statement of the case, there is no alternative but to \ndismiss this claim in its entirety, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute. \nIT IS SO ORDERED \n \n      ____________________________ \n       JAMES D. KENNEDY \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H201464 RICHELLE WORTHAM, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ARCARE, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TRAVELORS INDEMNITY CO. OF AMERICA TPA/CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JULY 30, 2024 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge James D. Kennedy in Batesville, Arkansas, on July 24, 2024....","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:52:19.130Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H201464-2024-07-30","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WORTHAM_RICHELLE_H201464_20240730.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}