{"id":"alj-H203243-2024-05-22","awcc_number":"H203243","decision_date":"2024-05-22","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Faith Lawson","employer_name":"United Parcel Service, Inc","title":"LAWSON VS. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. AWCC# H203243 MAY 22, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:4","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["back","neck","ankle"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/LAWSON_FAITH_H203243_20240522.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"LAWSON_FAITH_H203243_20240522.pdf","text_length":11650,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO.: H203243 \n \n \nFAITH LAWSON, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                 CLAIMANT \n                                                                                                           \nUNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,   \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT                                                                                                       \n \nLM INSURANCE CORPORATION, \nINSURANCE CARRIER                                                                                        RESPONDENT \n  \n \n \n \nOPINION FILED MAY 22, 2024   \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Texarkana, Miller County, \nArkansas. \n \nThe Claimant, unrepresented/pro se, did not appear at the hearing.   \n \nThe Respondents represented  by the  Honorable David  C.  Jones, Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n                                                         Statement of the Case      \n \nA hearing was held on May 14, 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/or Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Rule \n099.13.     \nAppropriate Notice of this hearing was had on all parties to their last known address, in the \nmanner prescribed by law.  No testimony was taken during the dismissal hearing.   \n The record consists of the transcript of the May 14, 2024, hearing and the documents held \nthere.   Admitted into evidence was Commission’s Exhibit 1 consisting of eight (8) pages of forms, \n\nLAWSON – H203243 \n \n2 \n \npleadings, and correspondence from the Commission’s file on the claim; and Respondents’ Exhibit \n1 comprising  of pleadings, correspondence,  unexecuted authorizations, discovery  requests, and \nvarious other forms related to this claim, consisting of forty-nine (49) pages.   \n                                                                    Background \nOn  June  28,  2023,  the Claimant’s former attorney filed with  the Commission a claim \n(AWCC  Claim  No.  H203243) for Arkansas workers’ compensation benefits on  behalf  of  the \nClaimant by  way  of  a Form  AR-C.   According  to  this document, the Claimant provided  the \nfollowing description of her alleged work-related accidental injury: “Claimant was injured during \nthe course and scope of her employment.  Claimant sustained injuries to her back neck, head, left \nankle, right hand, and other whole body.”  Per the Form AR-C, the Claimant requested both initial \nand additional workers’ compensation benefits.  The date of the Claimant’s work-related accident \nis April 26, 2022.    \nThe  respondent-carrier  filed  a  Form  AR-2  with the  Commission on  May 9,  2022, \nconfirming that they were not challenging the claim.  On July 12, 2023, the Respondents’ attorney \nwrote a letter to the Commission advising, among other things, that they had recently been retained \nby the respondent-carrier to represent them in this proceeding.  Counsel for the Respondents said \nthat Respondents accepted this as a compensable claim for the Claimant’s head and right-hand \ninjuries.  However, it was their position that all appropriate benefits had been paid to date.  \nSubsequently, on September 15, 2023, the Claimant’s former attorney sent an e-mail to the \nCommission to enter her formal appearance on behalf of the Claimant.  At that time, counsel also \nrequested a hearing on the merits.  Additionally, the Claimant’s former attorney asserted that on \nJanuary  17,  2023, the  Claimant  sustained  a  second work-related injury (AWCC  Claim  No. \nH301388),  which  was  to  her  lower back  during  and  in the  course  of  her  employment  while \n\nLAWSON – H203243 \n \n3 \n \ndelivering a heavy box.   Therefore, the Claimant’s former attorney requested a hearing on both \nclaims.  However, currently,  the  only  claim  before  me  for  dismissal  is  the  first  claim,  which  is \nAWCC Claim No. H203243, which has an injury date of April 26, 2022.   \nPreviously, the prehearing process was started on both claims.  On October 4, 2023, the \nRespondents’ attorney wrote a letter to the Commission saying that the Respondents were asking \nthat the first claim, (AWCC Claim No. H203243) be dismissed because all appropriate benefits \nhave been paid on that claim.  Respondents’ counsel advised, in relevant part, that approval for the \nrequested back surgery on the second claim/ AWCC Claim No. H301388 should be forthcoming \nbecause the EMG studies showed objective medical findings. \nOn October 5, 2023, the Claimant’s attorney sent an email to the Commission confirming \nthat the Respondents had authorized and approved the surgery that had been recommended for the \nClaimant’s back.  Therefore, the Claimant’s attorney asked for  cancelation  of the  prehearing \ntelephone  conference  scheduled  for  October  16, 2023, and that  both  cases be  returned  to  the \nCommission’s general files.   With there being no objection from the Respondents, this was done. \nConversely, on  February 20, 2024, the Claimant’s attorney filed with the  Commission a \nmotion to withdraw from representing the Claimant on both claims.  On March 20, 2024, the Full \nCommission entered an Order granting the motion.        \n   A few days later on March 25, 2024, the Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss With or \nWithout  Prejudice on the  above  referenced claim  (AWCC  Claim  No.  H203243)  with an injury \ndate of April 26, 2022.  The Respondents served a copy of the foregoing pleading on the Claimant \nvia US Mail.  In support of their motion for dismissal, the Respondents specifically noted that there \nhas been no activity on the claim since September 2023.   \n\nLAWSON – H203243 \n \n4 \n \nThe Commission sent a letter notice on March 29, 2024, to the Claimant informing her of \nthe Respondents’ motion for  dismissal  of  her  claim.  Said  letter was mailed to  the  Claimant  by \nboth first-class and certified mail.  Per this correspondence, the Claimant was given a deadline of \ntwenty (20) days for filing a written response to the Respondents’ motion to dismiss.  \nInformation received by the Commission from the United States Postal Service shows that \nthey delivered this item to the Claimant on April 5, 2024.  The electronic return receipt bears the \nClaimant’s printed name, as well as her signature.  Moreover,  the letter notice  mailed  to  the \nClaimant via first-class mail has not been returned to the Commission.  \nYet, there has been no response from the Claimant in this regard.  \nSubsequently, on April 19, 2024, the Commission sent a Notice of Hearing to the parties \nletting them know that a dismissal hearing had been scheduled to address the Respondents’ motion \nto dismiss this claim due to a lack of prosecution.  The hearing notice was sent to the Claimant via \ncertified  and  first-class  mail.   Said hearing  was  scheduled  for May 14,  2024, at 10:00 a.m., in \nTexarkana, Arkansas. \nTracking information received by the Commission from the Postal Service shows that on \nApril 22, 2024, they delivered this item to the Claimant’s home.  The Claimant signed the receipt \nfor proof of delivery of this item.  Similarly, the notice sent to the Claimant via first-class mail has \nnot been returned to the Commission.    \nYet, there was no response from the Claimant.    \n On May 14, 2024, a dismissal hearing was in fact conducted on the Respondents’ motion \nfor dismissal of this claim as scheduled.  The Claimant did not appear at the dismissal hearing.  \nHowever, the Respondents appeared through their attorney.  \n\nLAWSON – H203243 \n \n5 \n \nCounsel for the Respondents asserted that the Claimant has failed to promptly prosecute \nthis claim for workers’ compensation benefits.  The Respondents’ attorney argued, among other \nthings, that there has been no attempt on the part of the Claimant to move forward with a hearing \non this claim since September of 2023.  Therefore, counsel asked that this claim be dismissed due \nto  a  failure  to  prosecute, with  or without prejudice, because the Claimant  has  not  requested  a \nhearing within six months after her last request for a hearing.  Counsel also said that all appropriate \nbenefits  have been paid  on  this  claim.    Of  note,  counsel  for  the  Respondents  indicated  that  the \nClaimant has another ongoing claim that is not part of this current dismissal action.  As previously \nstated, that second claim was for an injury to the Claimant’s back, which occurred on January 17, \n2023.  That claim is of record with the Commission as AWCC Claim No. H301388.   \nThe evidence before me proves that the Claimant has failed to promptly prosecute her claim \nfor workers’ compensation benefits.  In that regard, the Claimant has not requested a hearing since \nher former attorney requested a hearing on September 12, 2023, which was more than six months \nago.   Of significance,  the Claimant did  not  appear  at  the  hearing  to  object  to  her  claim  being \ndismissed, and she has not responded to the notices of this Commission, despite having received \ndelivery of  them.   Under  these  circumstances,  I  am  compelled  to  find  that  the  evidence \npreponderates  that  the  Claimant  has failed  to  prosecute  her claim for workers’ compensation \nbenefits.  Therefore, per Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702 and Rule 099.13 of this Commission, I find \nthat this claim should be and is hereby respectfully dismissed, without prejudice to the refiling of \nit within the limitation period specified by law.   \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): \n\nLAWSON – H203243 \n \n6 \n \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, for which a hearing was held. \n \n3. The  Claimant  has  not  requested  a  hearing  since  her former attorney \nrequested a hearing in September of 2023, which was more than six months \nago.   Hence,  the evidence  preponderates  that  the  Claimant has  failed  to \nprosecute her claim for workers’ compensation benefits based upon  the \nrelevant provisions of the specified statute and Rule of this Commission.       \n \n4. Appropriate Notice of the dismissal hearing was had on all parties to their \nlast 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.  \n \n \n \n                              _______________________________ \n               CHANDRA L. BLACK \n               Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H203243 FAITH LAWSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT LM INSURANCE CORPORATION, INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 22, 2024 Hearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Texarkana, Miller C...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:54:37.027Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H203243-2024-05-22","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/LAWSON_FAITH_H203243_20240522.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}