{"id":"alj-H205450-2023-07-12","awcc_number":"H205450","decision_date":"2023-07-12","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Stevie Massey","employer_name":"Rock N Roll Sushi","title":"MASSEY VS. ROCK N ROLL SUSHI AWCC# H205450 JULY 12, 2023","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:7","granted:4"],"injury_keywords":["knee"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MASSEY_STEVIE_H205450_20230712.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"MASSEY_STEVIE_H205450_20230712.pdf","text_length":4769,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H205450 \n \nSTEVIE MASSEY, EMPLOYEE  CLAIMANT \n \nROCK N ROLL SUSHI, \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                RESPONDENT  \n \nSEQUOIA INSURANCE COMPANY, \nINSURANCE COMPANY                                                                          RESPONDENT \n \nAM TRUST NORTH AMERICA, \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR                                                           RESPONDENT  \n \n \nOPINION FILED JULY 12, 2023 \n \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge Steven Porch on July 11, 2023, in Little Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant is Pro Se. \n \nThe  Respondents  were  represented  by  William  C.  Frye,  Attorney  at  Law,  North  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 July 11, 2023, in Little Rock, \nArkansas.  Claimant was Pro Se and did not appear for the hearing.  Respondents were \nrepresented  at  the  hearing  by  Attorney  William  C.  Frye.  In  addition  to  Respondent’s \nargument,  the  record  further consists  of  the  Commission’s  file,  which  has  been \nincorporated herein in its entirety by reference. \n The evidence reflects that Claimant’s injury occurred on June 25, 2022, where she \npurportedly injured her knee resulting in a meniscus tear.  This incident allegedly occurred \nwhen Claimant was walking down the stairs during the course and scope of employment. \n\nMASSEY H205450 \n \n \n2 \nA hearing was held on July 11, 2023, in Little Rock, Arkansas, on the Motion to Dismiss. \nAnd as previously stated, the Claimant did not 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\nMASSEY H205450 \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 and Claimant’s failure to appear, I find that \nClaimant was required to give the Commission her most current address. In that respect, \nI also find that Claimant was given reasonable notice, at her most current address, for the \nMotion to Dismiss hearing. I further find that Claimant has abridged Rule 13 by failing to \nprosecute her claim. Therefore, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \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. H205450 STEVIE MASSEY, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ROCK N ROLL SUSHI, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT SEQUOIA INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE COMPANY RESPONDENT AM TRUST NORTH AMERICA, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JULY 12, 2023 Hearing before Administrative La...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:05:14.535Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H205450-2023-07-12","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MASSEY_STEVIE_H205450_20230712.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}