{"id":"alj-H206170-2023-07-27","awcc_number":"H206170","decision_date":"2023-07-27","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Amanda Rowlett","employer_name":"Linen King LLC","title":"ROWLETT VS. LINEN KING LLC AWCC# H206170 JULY 27, 2023","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:5","granted:1","denied:3"],"injury_keywords":["neck"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Rowlett_Amanda_H206170_20230727.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Rowlett_Amanda_H206170_20230727.pdf","text_length":6358,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H206170 \n \n \nAMANDA K. ROWLETT, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nLINEN KING LLC, \n EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nTRAVELERS PROP. & CASUALTY CO. \n OF AMER., CARRIER RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED JULY 27, 2023 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge  O.  Milton  Fine  II  on  July  27,  2023,  in \nLittle Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se, not appearing. \n \nRespondents  represented  by  Mr.  Guy  Alton  Wade,  Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock,  \nArkansas. \n \n \nI.    BACKGROUND \n This  matter  comes  before  the  Commission  on  a  Motion  to  Dismiss  by  \nRespondents.  A hearing on the motion was conducted on July 27, 2023, in    Little \nRock, Arkansas.  No testimony was taken in the case.  Claimant, who according \nto  Commission  records  is  pro se,  failed  to  appear  at  the  hearing.    Without  \nobjection,  the  Commission  file  on  this  claim  has  been  incorporated  herein  in  its  \nentirety  by  reference.    Admitted  into  evidence  was  Respondents’  Exhibit  1,  \ncorrespondence related to the claim, consisting of five pages. \n\nROWLETT – H206170 \n2 \n \n The record reflects the following procedural history: \n On August  26,  2022,  a  Form  AR-1  was  filed  in  this  case,  reflecting  that \nClaimant purportedly  sustained an  injury  to her  neck  on August 13,  2022,  when \nshe  was  involved  in  a  work-related  motor  vehicle  accident.    Respondents  on \nAugust  26,  2022,  filed a  Form  AR-2,  representing  that  they had accepted  the  \ninjury as compensable and were paying medical and indemnity benefits pursuant \nthereto.  Claimant has not filed a Form AR-C.  Respondents’ counsel entered his \nappearance on September 27, 2022. \n On  May  15, 2023,  Respondents  filed  the  instant  Motion  to  Dismiss.  \nTherein, they argued that “Claimant has done nothing to pursue this matter,” thus \nwarranting dismissal.  The file was assigned to me on May 15, 2023; and on May \n30,  2023,  my  office  wrote  Claimant,  asking  for  a  response  to the  motion  within \ntwenty  (20)  days.    The  letter  was  sent  via  certified  and  first-class  mail to  the \naddress for Claimant listed in the file.  While the certified letter was returned to the \nCommission,  unclaimed,  on  June  22,  2023,  the  first-class  correspondence  was  \nnot returned.    Nonetheless,  no  response  to  the  motion was  forthcoming  from  \nClaimant. \n On June  27, 2023, a hearing  on  the  Motion to  Dismiss was scheduled for \nJuly 27, 2023, at 9:30 a.m. at the Commission in Little Rock.  The notice was sent \nto  Claimant  by  first-class  and  certified  mail  at  the  same  address  as  before.    As \nbefore, the certified letter was not claimed by Claimant, and it was returned to the \n\nROWLETT – H206170 \n3 \n \nCommission  on July  17,  2023.    But  again;  the first-class  letter  was  not  returned.  \nThe evidence thus preponderates that Claimant received notice of the hearing. \n The hearing on the Motion to Dismiss proceeded as scheduled on July 27, \n2023.    As  stated  above, Claimant failed  to  appear.    But  Respondents  appeared \nthrough counsel and argued for dismissal of the action under AWCC R. 099.13. \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After reviewing the record as a whole, I hereby make the following findings \nof  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  in  accordance  with  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-704 \n(Repl. 2012): \n1. The  Arkansas Workers’  Compensation  Commission  has  jurisdiction  \nover this matter. \n2. No Form AR-C has ever been filed in connection with this matter. \n3. No other document before the Commission in this matter constitutes \na claim for additional benefits. \n4. Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss  is  denied  because  no claim  exists  \nto be subject to dismissal. \nIII.  DISCUSSION \n AWCC 099.13 provides: \nUpon meritorious application to the Commission from either party in \nan action pending before the Commission, requesting that the claim \nbe  dismissed  for  want  of  prosecution,  the  Commission  may,  upon  \nreasonable notice to all parties, enter an order dismissing the claim \nfor want of prosecution. \n \n\nROWLETT – H206170 \n4 \n \nSee  generally  Johnson  v.  Triple  T  Foods,  55  Ark.  App.  83,  85,  929  S.W.2d  730  \n(1996).  (Emphasis added) \n Under  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-705(a)(3)  (Repl.  2012),  Respondents  must \nprove by a preponderance of the evidence that dismissal should be granted.  The \nstandard  “preponderance  of  the  evidence”  means  the  evidence  having  greater \nweight  or  convincing  force.    Barre  v.  Hoffman,  2009  Ark.  373,  326  S.W.3d  415; \nSmith v. Magnet Cove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947). \n No  Form  AR-C  has  been  filed  in  this  case.    That  is  the  means  for  filing  a \n“formal  claim.”    See  Yearwood  v.  Wal-Mart  Stores,  Inc.,  2003  AR  Wrk.  Comp.  \nL\nEXIS  739, Claim  No.  F201311 (Full  Commission  Opinion  filed  June  17,  2003).    \nSee also Sinclair v. Magnolia Hospital, 1998 AR Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 786, Claim No. \nE703502 (Full Commission Opinion filed December 22, 1998)(a claim is “typically” \nfiled via  a  Form  AR-C).    While  a  Form  AR-1  was  filed,  that  does not  suffice  to  \ninstigate a claim.  Id. \n Per Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(c) (Repl. 2012): \nA claim for additional compensation must specifically state that it is \na  claim  for  additional  compensation.    Documents  which  do  not  \nspecifically  request  additional  benefits  shall  not  be  considered  a  \nclaim for additional compensation. \n \n(Emphasis added)  See White Cty. Judge v. Menser, 2020 Ark. 140, 597 S.W.3d \n640. \n My  review  of  the  Commission’s  file  discloses  no  document  sufficient  to  \nconstitute a filing of a claim for additional benefits under the standard cited above.  \n\nROWLETT – H206170 \n5 \n \nBecause  no  claim  has  been  filed,  it  follows  that  there  is  no  claim  subject  to  \ndismissal  per  Respondents’  motion.    The Motion  to  Dismiss thus  must  be,  and  \nhereby is, denied. \nCONCLUSION \n In  accordance  with    the  findings    of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  set  forth  \nabove, the Motion to Dismiss is hereby denied. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n      ________________________________ \n      O. MILTON FINE II \n      Chief Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H206170 AMANDA K. ROWLETT, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT LINEN KING LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TRAVELERS PROP. & CASUALTY CO. OF AMER., CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JULY 27, 2023 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on July 27, 2023, in Little Rock...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:05:48.054Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H206170-2023-07-27","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Rowlett_Amanda_H206170_20230727.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}