{"id":"alj-H205427-2024-10-29","awcc_number":"H205427","decision_date":"2024-10-29","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Crystal Jackson-Light","employer_name":"Gpm Investments, LLC","title":"JACKSON-LIGHT VS. GPM INVESTMENTS, LLC AWCC# H205427 October 29, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:6","granted:2"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/JACKSON-LIGHT_CRYSTAL_H205427_20241029.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"JACKSON-LIGHT_CRYSTAL_H205427_20241029.pdf","text_length":13329,"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 OCTOBER 29, 2024   \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in El Dorado, Union County, \nArkansas. \n \nThe Claimant, pro se did not appear.   \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 September  4,  2024, in  the  present  matter  pursuant  to Dillard  v. \nBenton County Sheriff’s Office, 87 Ark. App. 379, 192 S.W. 3d 287 (2004), to determine whether \nthe above-referenced matter should be dismissed for failure to prosecute under the provisions of \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-702 (Repl. 2012), and/or Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission \nRule 099.13.   \nAppropriate Notice of this hearing was tried on all parties to their last known address, in \nthe manner prescribed by law.   \nNo testimony was taken during the dismissal hearing.   \n\nJACKSON-LIGHT – H205427 \n \n2 \n \n The record consists of the transcript of September 4, 2024, hearing and the documents held \ntherein.  In that regard, Commission’s Exhibit No. 1 includes three actual pages, which has been \nmarked accordingly, and Respondents’ Exhibit 1 consisting of twenty-five numbered pages was \nmarked as such.   \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 \nto her whole body during a motor vehicle accident on July 21, 2022, while performing employment \nduties  for  the  respondent-employer.   Per  the  Claim  Information  section  of  this document,  the \nClaimant asserted her entitlement to only initial workers’ compensation benefits.  Also, there is a \nhandwritten note 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 this claim.  Particularly,  the Respondents’ \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 this 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.  \n\nJACKSON-LIGHT – H205427 \n \n3 \n \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. \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’s motion for withdrawal as her counsel in this matter.    \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 \nreturned to 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 \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 \n4 \n \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 noted, among other things, that this claim \nshould be dismissed, without prejudice, due to all the above 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 \nan agreed amount of time and sanctions for the cost and expense of having to get her to take part \nin the discovery process.  As previously noted above, the motion to compel was held in abeyance \nat that time. \nDuring this first hearing, the Claimant’s attorney indicated that the Claimant sent an e-mail \nto him on January 25, 2024, saying that she was terminating his services and no longer wanted \nhim to represent her in this workers’ compensation claim.  This e-mail has been made a part of the \nrecord  but has  been  heavily  redacted  due  to  the nature of  the  language. Nevertheless,  the \nClaimant’s attorney forwarded this e-mail to the Commission after the hearing.  His e-mail was \nsent on March 6, 2024, immediately following the dismissal hearing.   Counsel for the Claimant \nasked that he be removed as attorney of record in this matter per the Claimant’s request.    \n\nJACKSON-LIGHT – H205427 \n \n5 \n \nRegarding  the  motion, at  the first dismissal hearing of  March  6,  2024, the Respondents \nasked for a dismissal without prejudice because the Claimant has not requested a hearing since the \nfiling of the Form AR-C, which was filed in October 2023.  However, the Claimant authored an \ne-mail as noted above asking that her claim not be dismissed.   \nFollowing this first dismissal hearing hearing, I found in an Opinion dated April 15, 2024, \nthat under the circumstances, the dismissal of this claim was not warranted at that particular time.  \nAs a result, I found that the Respondents’ motion to dismiss this claim was respectfully denied.  \nAt that time, the Claimant was given a word of caution that failure on her part to prosecute this \nclaim might result in it being dismissed.  \nSubsequently, the  Claimant did  not prosecute  her  claim.   Hence,  there  was  no  effort \nwhatsoever on the part of the Claimant to try and resolve or pursue some type of resolution of her \nclaim.   Therefore,  the  Respondents renewed  their  motion  to dismiss this  claim  for  a  lack  of \nprosecution.   \nOn July 17, 2024, my office sent the Claimant a letter giving her twenty days to respond to \nthe motion to dismiss.     \nStill, there was no response from the Claimant.  \nA Notice of Hearing was also sent to the Claimant on July 17, 2024, setting the claim for \na hearing on the renewed motion to dismissal for September 4, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. at the Union \nCounty Courthouse, in El Dorado.   Said notice was sent to the Claimant by first-class and certified \nmail to the same address as before.  This notice was returned to the Commission on July 24, 2024, \nas   undeliverable.    However,   the   first-class   letter   was   not   returned. Thus,   the evidence \npreponderates that the Claimant received proper notice of the dismissal hearing.  \n\nJACKSON-LIGHT – H205427 \n \n6 \n \nNevertheless,  the second  dismissal hearing  was  held  as  scheduled.   The  Respondents \nappeared through their attorney.  The Claimant did not appear at the hearing.  The Respondents’ \ncounsel argued that  the Claimant  has  failed  to  prosecute  her claim for workers’ compensation \nbenefits.  He further noted that the Claimant has not taken any affirmative action to prosecute her \nclaim in the last few months.  More specifically, the Respondents’ counsel essentially argued that \nthe Claimant has not taken any bona fide action to advance her claim since the filing of the Form \nAR-C, which was done in October of 2023.  \nTherefore, the Respondents’ attorney moved that this claim be dismissed pursuant  to \nCommission Rule  099.13 with  or  without  prejudice for  both the initial and additional workers’ \ncompensation benefits filed for herein.  Initial  \nA review of the evidence shows that the Claimant has had ample time to pursue her claim \nfor workers’ compensation benefits, but she has not done so, nor has she resisted the motion for \ndismissal.  Here, the evidence preponderates that the Claimant has failed to timely prosecute this \nclaim for workers’ compensation benefits.  Moreover, I am convinced that the Claimant has now \nabandoned her claim for benefits since she has taken no steps whatsoever to pursue any type of \nresolution in this matter, and she did not appear at the dismissal hearing.   \nTherefore,  after  consideration  of  the  evidence before  me,  I  find that  the Respondents’ \nmotion  to dismiss for  a  lack  of  prosecution  to  be  well founded.  I thus find  that  pursuant  to \nCommission Rule  099.13,  this  claim  for workers’ compensation benefits  should  be  dismissed \nwithout prejudice to the refiling within the limitation period specified under the Arkansas Workers’ \nCompensation Act (the “Act”).  Since  I  have  granted  the  request  for  this  claim  to  be  dismissed \nunder Commission Rule 099.13, the issue pertaining to the dismissal of it under Ark. Code Ann. \n§11-9-702 has been rendered moot and not discussed herein.     \n\nJACKSON-LIGHT – H205427 \n \n7 \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 renewed motion for dismissal \nof this claim, for which a hearing was held.  \n \n3. Appropriate notice of the dismissal hearing was tried on all parties to their \nlast known address, in the manner prescribed by law.    \n \n            4. The  Respondents’ renewed motion  to  dismiss  this  claim  for  a  lack  of \nprosecution  is  hereby granted without  prejudice under Commission Rule \n099.13.  \n \nORDER \n Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, I have no alternative \nbut to dismiss this claim for workers’ compensation benefits.  This dismissal is per Rule 099.13, \nwithout prejudice to the refiling of this claim within the limitation period. \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 OCTOBER 29, 2024 H...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:48:17.158Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H205427-2024-10-29","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/JACKSON-LIGHT_CRYSTAL_H205427_20241029.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}