{"id":"alj-H203994-2023-02-24","awcc_number":"H203994","decision_date":"2023-02-24","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Debra Czech","employer_name":"Mcdonald’s","title":"CZECH VS. McDONALD’S AWCC# H203994 FEBRUARY 24, 2023","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:8","granted:2"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//CZECH_DEBRA_H203994_20230224.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"CZECH_DEBRA_H203994_20230224.pdf","text_length":10251,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nWCC NO.:H203994 \n \nDEBRA CZECH, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                      CLAIMANT \n \nMcDONALD’S,                                                                \nSELF-INSURED EMPLOYER                                                                   RESPONDENT                        \n                                                     \nARKANSAS McDONALD’S SELF-INSURED                        \nTRUST/RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR (TPA)                                                 RESPONDENT                        \n \nOPINION FILED FEBRUARY 24, 2023   \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge  Chandra  L.  Black,  in  Little  Rock,  Pulaski \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se, did not appear for the hearing.  \n \nRespondents represented by Mr. Jarrod Parrish, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n    \n   STATEMENT OF THE CASE      \n \n A hearing was held on the Respondents’  motion to dismiss for want of prosecution,  \nin  the  above-styled  claim on February  22,  2023  pursuant  to  Dillard  v.  Benton  County \nSheriff’s Office, 87 Ark. App. 379, 192 S.W. 3d 287 (2004).  Specifically, the sole issue \nfor determination was whether this case should be dismissed due to the Claimant’s failure \nto diligently prosecute it under the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702 (Repl. 2012), \nand/or Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Rule 099.13.  \n Reasonable  notice  of  the  dismissal  hearing  was  provided  to  all  parties  in  the \nmanner prescribed by law.   \nThe  record  consists  of  the  February  22,  2023  hearing  transcript.  Equally,  the \nCommission’s file was made a part of the record.  It has been incorporated by reference \n\nCzech– H203994 \n2 \n \ninto  the  hearing  transcript.  The  Respondents  offered  into  evidence  a Respondents’ \nHearing  Exhibit  Index  consisting  of  ten  (10)  numbered  pages,  which  was  marked \nRespondents’ Exhibit 1. \n  No testimony was taken during the hearing. \nProcedural History \nThe Claimant filed a Form AR-C with the Commission in the above-styled claim on \nJune  1,  2022.    Per  this  document,  the  Claimant  alleged  she  sustained an  injury  while \nworking  for  the  respondent-employer  on  May  17,  2022.    The  Claimant  requested  only \ninitial workers’ compensation benefits in the form of medical expenses.  \nOn June 3, 2022, Respondents (the insurance carrier) filed a Form AR-2 with the \nCommission  accepting  the  claim  as a  compensable  injury  in  the  form  of  a “forehead \ncontusion.”  However, according to this document, the insurance carrier accepted this as \na “medical only claim.”   \nSince  the  filing  of  the  Form  AR-C,  there  has  been  no  activity  on  the part  of  the \nClaimant to pursue her claim for workers’ compensation benefits.  Most importantly, there \nhas not been a request for a hearing made by the Claimant since the filing of the Form \nAR-C in June 2022.  To date, the Claimant has not attempted in any process whatsoever \nto pursue her claim for workers’ compensation benefits.       \nTherefore, on  December 6, 2022  the Respondents filed with the Commission, a \nMotion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute, with a certificate of service to the Claimant. \nThis document shows that Respondents served a copy of the motion for dismissal on the \nClaimant by mailing a copy of this document to the Claimant via the United States Postal \nService.  \n\nCzech– H203994 \n3 \n \nSubsequently, on December 8, 2022  I sent a letter to the Claimant informing her \nof the motion, with a deadline of December 27, 2022 for filing a written objection with the \nCommission.   Information  received  by  the  Commission  from  the  United  States  Postal \nService shows that they delivered this item to the Claimant by leaving a copy of it with an \nindividual at her residence on December 10, 2022.   The electronic return receipt  appears \nto bear the scribbled signature of the Claimant’s last name only.   \nNevertheless,  there has been no reply from the Claimant.  \nThe  Commission  sent a  Notice of  Hearing  on  January  5,  2023  to the  parties  by \nway of certified mail, to inform them that a  hearing on Respondents’ motion to dismiss \nwas scheduled for February 22, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., at the Commission, in Little Rock.   \nInformation  received  from  the  United  States  Postal  Service  confirms  that  the \nClaimant’s  copy  of  the  hearing  notice  was  delivered  to her  home  and  left  with  an \nindividual.  My review of proof of the delivery information reveals that the Claimant signed \nfor delivery of this item on January 7, 2023.    \nThus far, there has been no reply from the Claimant.   \nThe  dismissal  hearing  was  in  fact  conducted  on  the Respondents’ Motion  to \nDismiss for Failure to Prosecute as scheduled.  However, the Claimant did not attend the \nhearing.  The Respondents’ attorney appeared at the hearing and renewed his motion for \nthis claim to be dismissed due to the Claimant’s failure to take any action to pursue it.  \nSpecifically, counsel basically pointed out that all appropriate benefits have been paid; \nand on May 19, 2022 the Claimant was released from care for her forehead contusion \ninjury.  The Respondents’ attorney pointed out that although it has been nine (9) months \nsince  the  injury  happened,  the  Claimant  has  done  nothing  to  prosecute or  pursue  her \n\nCzech– H203994 \n4 \n \nclaim; that she has not responded to the notices of this Commission; and she failed to \nappear at the hearing to object to her claim being dismissed. The Respondents’ attorney \nconcluded that the Claimant has exhibited a pattern of inaction to pursue/prosecute this \nmatter  which  clearly  establishes  that  she  has  failed  to  prosecute  her  claim.  Counsel \ntherefore requested that this claim be dismissed under the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. \n§11-9-702 (d) and Commission Rule 099.13.   \nDiscussion \nAlthough  the  Claimant  filed  a  claim  for  initial  medical  expenses,  the  evidence \npreponderates that this is a claim for additional benefits.  Therefore,  the applicable statute \nis Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702 (d) (Repl. 2012), which provides:  \nIf within six (6) months after the filing of a claim for additional compensation, \nno bona fide request for a hearing has been made with respect to the claim, \nthe claim may, upon motion and after hearing, if necessary, be dismissed \nwithout  prejudice  to  the  refiling  of  the  claim  within  the  limitation  period \nspecified in subsection (b) of this section. \n \nCommission Rule 099.13 reads, in relevant part:  \nUpon  meritorious  application  to  the  Commission  from  either  party  in  an \naction  pending  before  the  Commission,  requesting  that  the  claim  be \ndismissed for want of prosecution, the Commission may, upon reasonable \nnotice  to  all  parties,  enter  an  order  dismissing  the  claim  for  want  of \nprosecution. (Effective March 1, 1982) \n \nMy review of the record shows that more than six (6) months have passed since \nthe  Claimant’s  June  2022  filing  of  the  Form  AR-C for her  admittedly  compensable \ncontusion  of  the  forehead  injury.    However,  since  this  time,  the  Claimant  has  failed  to \nmake a request for a hearing before this Commission for a hearing on the merits of her \nclaim  for workers’ compensation benefits.  Moreover,  the  Claimant  has  not  voiced  any \nform of  objection  to  the  dismissal  of  her  claim.    Of  significance,  the  Claimant  did  not \n\nCzech– H203994 \n5 \n \nappear  at  the  dismissal  hearing  to  object  to  her  claim  being  dismissed  despite  having \nreceived notice of this proceeding.  \nTherefore, based on my review of the documentary evidence, and all other matters \nproperly before this Commission, I find that Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure \nto Prosecute should be granted pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702 (d) (Repl. 2012), \nand Commission Rule 099.13.  This dismissal is without prejudice, to the refiling of this \nclaim within the limitation period specified by law.  \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nOn the basis of the record as a whole, I hereby make the following findings of fact \nand conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction \nof this claim.  \n \n2. The  Claimant  filed  a  Form  AR-C with  the  Commission  on  June  1, \n2022  for  her  admittedly  compensable  work-related  injury,  which \noccurred on May 17, 2022.   \n \n3. Since the filing of her claim in June 2022, more than six (6) months \nhave  passed  without  the  Claimant having  requested  a  hearing  or \notherwise attempted to pursue her claim.       \n \n4. The Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute, \nwith  the  Commission  on  December  6,  2022.  The  Claimant  was \ninformed of said motion via the manner prescribed by law.  \n \n5. A  hearing  was  scheduled  and  held on the Respondents’ motion  to \ndismiss.  \n \n6. Reasonable  notice  of  the  hearing  was had  on  all  parties  in  the \nmanner provided by law.   \n \n7. The Claimant failed to appear at the hearing and has not responded \nto the written notices of this Commission.  Hence, the Claimant has \nnot objected to her claim being dismissed. \n  \n \n\nCzech– H203994 \n6 \n \n8. The evidence preponderates that Respondents’ motion to dismiss for \nwant of prosecution is warranted. \n \n9. That Respondents’ motion to dismiss this claim is hereby granted under  \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-702 (d), and Commission Rule 099.13, without \nprejudice, to the refiling of the claim within the specified limitation period. \n \nORDER \nBased  on  the  foregoing  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law,  this  claim  for \nworkers’ compensation benefits filed on June 1, 2022 is dismissed without prejudice, to \nthe refiling of it within the specified time.  \nIT IS SO ORDERED.                        \n                                          \n      _____________________________ \n      Chandra L. Black  \n                                          Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO.:H203994 DEBRA CZECH, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT McDONALD’S, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS McDONALD’S SELF-INSURED TRUST/RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR (TPA) RESPONDENT OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 24, 2023 Hearing before Administrative Law ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:10:37.263Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H203994-2023-02-24","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//CZECH_DEBRA_H203994_20230224.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}