{"id":"alj-H204176-2023-06-28","awcc_number":"H204176","decision_date":"2023-06-28","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Maxine Harris","employer_name":"Wis International","title":"HARRIS VS. WIS INTERNATIONAL AWCC# H204176 JUNE 28, 2023","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:7","granted:4"],"injury_keywords":["knee"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HARRIS_MAXINE_H204176_20230628.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"HARRIS_MAXINE_H204176_20230628.pdf","text_length":4889,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H204176 \n \nMAXINE HARRIS, EMPLOYEE  CLAIMANT \n \nWIS INTERNATIONAL, \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                RESPONDENT  \n \nAIU INSURANCE COMPANY, \nINSURANCE COMPANY                                                                          RESPONDENT \n \nGALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICE, INC., \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR                                                           RESPONDENT  \n \n \nOPINION FILED JUNE 28, 2023 \n \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge Steven Porch on June 27, 2023, in Little Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant is represented by Laura Beth York, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nThe  Respondents  were  represented  by  Carol  Lockard  Worley,  Attorney  at  Law,  Little \nRock, Arkansas. \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This  matter  comes  before  the  Commission  on  a  Motion  to  Dismiss  filed  by \nRespondents.  A hearing on the motion was conducted on June 27, 2023, in Little Rock, \nArkansas.  Claimant, who was represented by Attorney Laura Beth York, did appear for \nthe hearing.  Respondents were represented at the hearing by  Attorney Carol Lockard \nWorley.  In  addition  to  Respondent’s argument and  Respondents’  Exibit  “1”,  the  record \nfurther consists  of  the  Commission’s  file,  which  has  been  incorporated  herein  in  its \nentirety by reference. \n The evidence reflects that Claimant’s injury occurred on May 11, 2022, where she \npurportedly injured her left knee and other whole body.  This incident allegedly occurred \nwhen Claimant was was on her knees counting materials for her employer. A hearing was \n\nHARRIS H204176 \n \n \n2 \nheld  on  June 27,  2023,  in  Little  Rock,  Arkansas,  on  the  Motion  to  Dismiss.  And  as \npreviously stated, the Claimant and her attorney did appear for the hearing. \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After  reviewing  the  record  as  a  whole  and  other  matters  properly  before  the \nCommission,  I  hereby  make  the  following  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Commission has  jurisdiction  over  this \nclaim. \n2. All parties received reasonable and timely notice of the Motion to Dismiss and the \nhearing thereon pursuant to AWCC R. 099.13. \n3. Respondents  did  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  Claimant has \nfailed to prosecute his claim under AWCC R. 099.13. \n4. The Motion to Dismiss should be, and hereby is, granted without prejudice. \nIII.  DISCUSSION \n AWCC 099.13 provides: \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. \n \nSee generally Johnson v. Triple T Foods, 55 Ark. App. 83, 85, 929 S.W.2d 730 (1996).   \nUnder  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-705(a)(3)  (Repl.  2012),  Respondents  must  prove  by  a \npreponderance  of  the  evidence  that  dismissal  should  be  granted.  The  standard \n“preponderance of the evidence” means the evidence having greater weight or convincing \n\nHARRIS H204176 \n \n \n3 \nforce.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 S.W.3d 415; Smith v. Magnet Cove Barium \nCorp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947). \n A claimant’s testimony is never considered uncontroverted.  Nix v. Wilson World \nHotel,  46 Ark.  App.  303,  879  S.W.2d  457  (1994).  The  determination  of  a  witness’ \ncredibility and how much weight to accord to that person’s testimony are solely up to the \nCommission. White v. Gregg Agricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001).  \nThe Commission must sort through conflicting evidence and determine the true facts.  Id.  \nIn so doing, the Commission is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant or \nany other witness, but may accept and translate into findings of fact only those portions \nof the testimony that it deems worthy of belief.  Id. \n After consideration of all the evidence, I find that Claimant and Respondents were \ngiven  reasonable  notice,  at  the  addresses  provided  by  each  party,  for  the Motion  to \nDismiss  hearing  under  Rule  13.  I  further  find  that  Claimant  has  abridged this  rule. \nClaimant’s counsel agrees with this dismissal without prejudice. Thus I find Respondent’s \nMotion to Dismiss should be granted without prejudice. \nCONCLUSION \n Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, Respondents’ \nMotion to Dismiss is hereby granted without prejudice. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n      ________________________________ \n      STEVEN PORCH \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H204176 MAXINE HARRIS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT WIS INTERNATIONAL, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT AIU INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE COMPANY RESPONDENT GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICE, INC., THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JUNE 28, 2023 Hearing before Administrati...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:06:52.833Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H204176-2023-06-28","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HARRIS_MAXINE_H204176_20230628.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}