{"id":"alj-H204360-2024-01-04","awcc_number":"H204360","decision_date":"2024-01-04","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Claudell Reed","employer_name":"Wendys Old Fashion Hamburger","title":"REED VS. WENDYS OLD FASHION HAMBURGER AWCC# H204360 JANUARY 4, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:5","granted:2"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Reed_Claudell_H204360_20240104.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Reed_Claudell_H204360_20240104.pdf","text_length":5215,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H204360 \n \nCLAUDELL REED, \nEMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nWENDYS OLD FASHION HAMBURGER, \nEMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nPHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, \nINSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED JANUARY 4, 2024 \n \nHearing conducted on Tuesday, January 3, 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. Claudell Reed, pro se, of Jacksonville, Arkansas, did not appear in person at \nthe hearing. \n \nThe Respondents were represented by the Honorable Guy Alton Wade, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n Today, January 3, 2024, was the second hearing on a motion to dismiss in this matter. The \nfirst hearing was conducted on Wednesday, July 25, 2023, to determine whether this claim should \nbe dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(a)(4) (2022 Lexis \nReplacement) and Commission Rule 099.13 (2022 Lexis Repl.). The Respondents filed a motion \nto dismiss with the Commission on March 17, 2023, requesting this claim be dismissed for lack of \nprosecution. \n In accordance with applicable Arkansas law, the Claimant was mailed due and proper legal \nnotice of both the respondents’ motion to dismiss and the hearing notice at her current address of \nrecord via the United States Postal Service (USPS), First Class and Certified Mail, Return Receipt \nRequested, which she received on June 17, 2023. \n\nREED, AWCC No. H204360 \n \n2 \n \n The Claimant appeared for the hearing and stated she had an attorney and believed her \nattorney was handling the matter. Claimant’s attorney, Laura Beth York, withdrew her services, \nvia email, on May 16, 2023. I found, during that hearing, there was a miscommunication between \nClaimant’s attorney and herself about the representation. The Claimant desired to go forward with \nher claim. I advised the Claimant of her right to seek counsel and the benefits of the Commission \nlegal advisors. I further advised the Claimant that she is held to the same standard as an attorney \nif she represents herself. \n Approximately 6 months later, the Claimant has not availed herself of legal counsel or \nanswered discovery requests propounded by the Respondents. The Claimant has not submitted \nquestionnaire responses required by the Commission even when she was issued additional time to \ndo so. Due to the lack of prosecution of this claim, Respondents requested a motion to dismiss \nhearing on October 25, 2023. Notice of this motion to dismiss was sent to the Claimant by First-\nClass and Certified Mail on October 30, 2023, but she did not respond to the motion nor show up \nto the January 3, 2024, hearing. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \nTherefore, after a thorough consideration of the facts, issues, the applicable law, and other \nrelevant matters of record, including Respondents’ Exhibit 1, non-medical records, consisting of \ntwenty-two pages, I hereby make the following findings: \n \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The Claimant has failed to prosecute her claim under Commission Rule 99.13. \n \n3. The Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \n \n 4. The Claimant and Respondents both had proper notice of January 3, 2024, hearing. \n \n\nREED, AWCC No. H204360 \n \n3 \n \n \n \nDISCUSSION \n Consistent with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(a)(4), as well as our court of appeals’ ruling \nin Dillard vs. Benton County Sheriff’s Office, 87 Ark. App. 379, 192 S.W.3d 287 (Ark. App. 2004), \nthe Commission scheduled and conducted a hearing on the Respondents’ motion to dismiss. I do \nfind by the preponderance of the evidence, introduced at the hearing, and contained in the record, \nthat Claimant has not requested a hearing, nor has she taken any action to pursue her claim as of \nthe hearing date. The Claimant has not complied with any discovery requests propounded by the \nRespondents or submitted the required questionnaires to the Commission despite being given \nadditional time to do so. Therefore, I find by the preponderance of the evidence that the Claimant \nhas failed to prosecute her claim under Commission Rule 99.13. \n CONCLUSION \n Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, Respondents’ \nMotion to Dismiss is hereby granted 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 CLAIM NO. H204360 CLAUDELL REED, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT WENDYS OLD FASHION HAMBURGER, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JANUARY 4, 2024 Hearing conducted on Tuesday, January 3, 2024, before the Arkansas Workers’ Comp...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:58:04.722Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H204360-2024-01-04","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Reed_Claudell_H204360_20240104.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}