{"id":"alj-H206300-2023-08-15","awcc_number":"H206300","decision_date":"2023-08-15","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Bridgette Mitchell","employer_name":"Fedex Ground Package System, Inc","title":"MITCHELL VS. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC. AWCC# H206300 AUGUST 15, 2023","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:7","granted:4"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MITCHELL_BRIDGETTE_H206300_20230815.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"MITCHELL_BRIDGETTE_H206300_20230815.pdf","text_length":4771,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H206300 \n \nBRIDGETTE MITCHELL, EMPLOYEE  CLAIMANT \n \nFEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., \nEMPLOYER/SELF INSURED                                                                    RESPONDENT  \n \nSEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR                                                           RESPONDENT  \n \n \nOPINION FILED AUGUST 15, 2023 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge  Steven  Porch  on  August 15,  2023,  in  Little \nRock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant is representing herself, Pro Se, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nThe Respondents were represented by Zachary F. Ryburn, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This  matter  was  scheduled  for  a  Motion  to  Dismiss  today,  August 15,  2023. \nClaimant did not appear for the the hearing. Notices were sent to Claimant certified return \nreceipt requested and regular first class mail. The Claimant did not sign for the certified \nletter. However, the first class letter containing the same hearing notice was not returned.  \nI  opened  the  hearing  at  10:10am, 10  minutes  after  the  motion  hearing  was \nscheduled to begin. All parties were given written notice of this hearing.  I have entered \ninto evidence the Commission’s file by reference.  \n The evidence reflects that Claimant’s injury occurred on August 24, 2022, where \nshe purportedly injured her tail bone, pelvis, lower back, right side, and other whole body. \nThis  incident  allegedly  occurred  when  Claimant  was  attempting  to  put  a package on  a \n\nMITCHELL H206300 \n \n \n2 \ntruck for delivery when she fell through a gap situated between the dock and the delivery \ntruck. This is a totally controverted claim.  \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 full-hearing that was later \nconverted  to  a  Motion  to  Dismiss  hearing  under  AWCC  R.  099.13,  due  to \nClaimant’s failure to appear at the full-hearing. \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\nMITCHELL H206300 \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, I find that Claimant and Respondents were \ngiven  reasonable  notice,  at  the  addresses  provided  by  each  party,  for  the Motion  to \nDismiss hearing under Rule 13. I further find that Claimant has abridged this rule. Thus I \nfind Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss should be granted without prejudice. \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. H206300 BRIDGETTE MITCHELL, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYER/SELF INSURED RESPONDENT SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED AUGUST 15, 2023 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge Steven P...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:03:54.998Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H206300-2023-08-15","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MITCHELL_BRIDGETTE_H206300_20230815.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}