{"id":"alj-H205427-2024-04-15","awcc_number":"H205427","decision_date":"2024-04-15","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Crystal Jackson-Light","employer_name":null,"title":"JACKSON-LIGHT VS. GPM INVESTMENTS, LLCAWCC# H205427April 15, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:6","denied:3"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/JACKSON-LIGHT_CRYSTAL_H205427_20240415.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"JACKSON-LIGHT_CRYSTAL_H205427_20240415.pdf","text_length":11601,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO.: H205427 \n \n \nCRYSTAL JACKSON-LIGHT, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                 CLAIMANT \n                                                                                                           \nGPM INVESTMENTS, LLC,   \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT                                                                                                       \n \nACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, \nINSURANCE CARRIER                                                                                        RESPONDENT \n  \nHELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR                                                                     RESPONDENT  \n                       \n \nOPINION FILED APRIL 15, 2024   \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in El Dorado, Union County, \nArkansas. \n \nThe Claimant represented by the Honorable F. Matthew Thomas, III, Attorney at Law, El Dorado, \nArkansas.   \n \nThe Respondents represented by the Honorable Rick Behring, Jr., Attorney at Law, Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n                                                         Statement of the Case      \n \nA hearing was held on March 6, 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.  Of note, only the issue pertaining to the motion for dismissal due to a lack of prosecution \nwas addressed during the hearing.  The Respondents’ Motion to Compel has been held in abeyance \nat this time.  \n\nJACKSON-LIGHT – H205427 \n \n2 \n \nAppropriate Notice of this hearing was tried on all parties to their last known address, in \nthe manner prescribed by law.  The Claimant waived her appearance at the hearing.  No testimony \nwas taken during the dismissal hearing.   \n The record consists of the transcript of the March 6, 2024, hearing and the documents held \ntherein.  Admitted  into  evidence  was  Respondents’  Exhibit  1,  pleadings, correspondence, \nunexecuted authorizations, discovery  requests, and various  other forms  related  to  this  claim, \nconsisting  of twenty-seven  numbered pages.   Additionally,  in  order  to  address  adequately  this \nmatter  under  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-705(a)(1) (Repl. 2012)(Commission must “conduct the \nhearing  . . . in a manner which best ascertains the rights of the parties”), and without objection, I \nhave blue-backed to the record forms, pleadings, and correspondence from the Commission’s file \non the claim, consisting of twelve totaled pages.  In accordance with Sapp v. Tyson Foods, Inc., \n2010  Ark.  App.  517,  ___  S.W.3d  ___,  these  documents  have  been served  on  the  parties  in \nconjunction with this opinion. \n                                                                    Background \nThe Claimant’s  attorney filed with  the Commission a claim for Arkansas workers’ \ncompensation benefits on behalf of the Claimant by way of a Form AR-C, on October 16, 2023.  \nAccording to this document, the Claimant alleged, among other things, that she sustained injuries \nduring a motor vehicle accident to her whole body on July 21, 2022, while performing employment \nduties  for  the  respondent-employer.   Per  the  Claim  Information  section  of  this document,  the \nClaimant’s requested only initial workers’ compensation benefits.  Also,  there  is  a  handwritten \nnote in this section, which reads, “All benefits due under the color of law.”    \nPreviously, on August  8,  2022,  the  respondent-carrier  filed  a  Form  AR-2  with the \nCommission confirming that they  were challenging the  claim.  Particularly,  the  Respondents’ \n\nJACKSON-LIGHT – H205427 \n \n3 \n \nposition for denying the claim included: “Tested positive for methamphetamines at initial hospital \nintake.  The mere presence of alcohol or drugs creates a rebuttable presumption that the accident \nwas substantially occasioned by the use of the drugs or alcohol.”      \nSubsequently, there was no activity on the claim.         \n As a result, on January 5, 2024, the Respondents filed with the Commission a Respondents’ \nMotion to Compel or Dismiss and  Incorporated Brief in Support, which  was accompanied by a \nCertificate of Service.  Per this pleading, the Respondents served a copy of the foregoing pleadings \non the Claimant’s attorney by e-mailing a copy thereof to his law firm.  \nThe Commission sent a letter notice on January 10, 2024, to the Claimant and her attorney \ninforming them of the Respondents’ motion.  Said letter was mailed to the Claimant by both first-\nclass  and  certified  mail.  Per  this  correspondence, the  Claimant  was  given a  deadline of twenty \ndays for filing a written response to the Respondents’ motion to dismiss.  \nHowever, the United States Postal Service informed the Commission on January 22, 2024, \nthat they were unable to deliver this item to the Claimant.  On the contrary, the letter notice sent \nto the Claimant by first- class mail has not been returned to the Commission.  \nNevertheless, there was no response from the Claimant or her attorney.   \nThe  Commission  sent  a Notice of  Hearing dated February  1,  2024, to the  parties letting \nthem  know  that a dismissal hearing had  been scheduled to address the Respondents’ motion to \ndismiss this claim due to a lack of prosecution.  The notice was sent to the Claimant via certified \nand first-class mail.  Said hearing was scheduled for February 1, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., in El Dorado, \nArkansas. \n\nJACKSON-LIGHT – H205427 \n \n4 \n \nOn February 2, 2024, the Claimant’s attorney submitted a Motion to Withdraw from \nrepresenting the Claimant in this matter.   I entered an order on February 12, 2024\n1\n denying the \nClaimant’s attorney motion for withdrawal.    \nTracking information received by the Commission from the United States Postal Service \nshows that on February 8, 2024, they returned the hearing notice sent to the Claimant by certified \nmail because it was “unclaimed.” However, the notice sent by first-class mail has not been returned \nto the Commission.  \nStill,  there was no  response  from  the Claimant  until  March  5,  2024.  At  that  time,  the \nClaimant sent an email to the Commission saying she had planned to attend the hearing but was \nunable to get transportation from Mississippi to El Dorado.  The Claimant objected to her claim \nbeing dismissed and apologized for not being able to attend the hearing.     \n The following day, on March 6, 2024, a hearing was in fact conducted on the Respondents’ \nmotion for dismissal as scheduled.  As noted above, the Claimant did not appear at the dismissal \nhearing.  However,  the Respondents appeared  through  their  attorney.  The Claimant’s attorney \nalso attended the hearing.   \nCounsel for the Respondents noted that the Claimant has failed to promptly prosecute her \nclaim for workers’ compensation benefits.  The Respondents attorney noted that there has been no \nattempt on the part of the Claimant to move forward with a hearing since the filing of the Form \nAR-C,  which  was  done on October  16,  2023.  Counsel  indicated, among  other  things, that  this \nclaim should be dismissed, without prejudice due to all the afore reasons.  \nIn the  alternative, the Respondents counsel  asked that the Commission enter an order to \ncompel the Claimant to provide complete discovery responses and executed authorizations within \n \n1\n There is a clerical error on my order denying the Claimant’s attorney Motion to Withdraw.  The order \nstates it was entered on January 8, 2024.  Instead, the correct date for the order appears to be February 12, 2024.   \n\nJACKSON-LIGHT – H205427 \n \n5 \n \nan agreed amount of time and sanctions for the cost and expense of having to get her to participate.  \nAs  previously  noted  above,  the  motion  to  compel  has  been  held  in  abeyance  and  will  not  be \naddressed in this opinion. \nDuring the hearing, the Claimant’s attorney noted that the Claimant sent an e-mail to him \non January 25, 2024, saying that she was terminating his services and no longer wanted him to \nrepresent her in this workers’ compensation claim.  This e-mail has been made a part of the record \nbut has been heavily redacted due to the nature of some of the language.  The Claimant’s attorney \nforwarded this e-mail to the Commission after the hearing.  His e-mail was sent on March 6, 2024, \nimmediately following the dismissal hearing.   Counsel for the Claimant asked that he be removed \nas attorney of record in this matter per the Claimant’s request.   The Claimant’s attorney is hereby \nremoved as counsel of record in this matter for the Claimant.    \nRegarding  the  motion  for  dismissal, Respondents  at  the  hearing  asked  for  a  dismissal \nwithout prejudice because the Claimant has not requested a hearing since the filing of the Form \nAR-C,  which  was  filed in October 2023.    However,  the  Claimant authored an  e-mail  as  noted \nabove asking that her claim not be dismissed.  Under these circumstances, based on my review of \nthe documentary evidence, and all other matters before this Commission, I find that the dismissal \nof this claim is not warranted at this time.  Accordingly, the Respondents’ motion to dismiss this \nclaim is hereby respectfully denied. \nA  word  of  caution  to  the  Claimant,  although  Claimant has  indicated  that  she  wishes  to \npursue her claim, if she does not do so in a prompt manner, then the Respondents may renew their \nmotion to dismiss this claim for a lack of prosecution.   \nI hereby ask that this file be reassigned to this office after the filing of the within opinion \nfor the initiation of the prehearing process.        \n\nJACKSON-LIGHT – H205427 \n \n6 \n \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): \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 the filing of the Form AR-\nC in  October  2023.  Later,  the Claimant objected  to  her  claim  being \ndismissed and  indicated  that  she  wishes  to  pursue  her  claim for workers’ \ncompensation benefits.      \n \n4. Appropriate Notice of the dismissal hearing was attempted on all parties to \ntheir last 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 respectfully denied at this time.  \n \n            6. The Claimant’s attorney is hereby relieved as counsel of record in this \nclaim.  \n \nORDER \nIn accordance with the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of the law set forth above, \nthe Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss this claim is respectfully denied at this time. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n \n                              _______________________________ \n               CHANDRA L. BLACK \n               Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H205427 CRYSTAL JACKSON-LIGHT, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT GPM INVESTMENTS, LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 15, 2024 Hea...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:55:21.440Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H205427-2024-04-15","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/JACKSON-LIGHT_CRYSTAL_H205427_20240415.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}