{"id":"alj-H206910-2023-05-18","awcc_number":"H206910","decision_date":"2023-05-18","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Amanda Rochelle-Lewis","employer_name":"Tyson Poultry Inc","title":"ROCHELLE-LEWIS VS. TYSON POULTRY INC. AWCC# H206910 MAY 18, 2023","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:8"],"injury_keywords":["repetitive"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/ROCHELLE-LEWIS_AMANDA_H206910_20230518.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"ROCHELLE-LEWIS_AMANDA_H206910_20230518.pdf","text_length":8003,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO.: H206910 \n \n \nAMANDA J. ROCHELLE-LEWIS, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                 CLAIMANT \n \nTYSON POULTRY, INC.,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT                                    \n                                                                                                                                                                                             \nTYNET CORPORATION, \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR                                                                     RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED MAY 18, 2023   \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nThe claimant, pro se, did not appear for the hearing.         \n \nRespondents represented by Mr. J. Matthew Mauldin, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n                                                         Statement of the Case      \n \n A hearing was conducted on May 17, 2023, in the present matter pursuant Ark. Code Ann. \n§11-9-702 and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Rule 099.13 for the purpose of a \ndetermination of whether the above-captioned claim should be dismissed for want of prosecution.  \nAppropriate Notice of this hearing was tried on all parties to their last known address, in \nthe manner specified by law.   \nNo testimony was taken at the hearing.  \nThe record consists of the transcript of the May 17, 2023, hearing and the documents held \ntherein.  The rest of the Commission’s file has also been made a part of the record.  It is hereby \nincorporated here by reference, without objection.  The Respondents submitted evidence entailing \none exhibit, consisting of three numbered pages.  It has been marked as Respondents’ Exhibit 1.     \n \n\nRochelle-Lewis-H206910 \n \n2 \n \nBackground \n The following procedural history applies to this claim:  \nParticularly,  on  September  26,  2022,  the  Claimant  filed  a  Form  AR-C  with  this \nCommission alleging that she sustained compensable injuries on March 10, 2022, while working \nfor the respondent-employer.  She alleged compensable injuries to her right hand and left elbow \n(tennis elbow) due to repetitive-motion type employment duties.  The Claimant requested initial \nbenefits in the form of medical expenses and loss wages.       \n  The respondent-insurance-carrier filed a Form AR-2 with the Commission on September \n29,  2022,  controverting  the  claim.    The  carrier  wrote  down  on  this  form  that  they  were \ncontroverting the claim because: “She [the Claimant] was not employed long enough to sustain a \ntraumatic injury from rapid repetitive motion.” \nSince the time of filing the Form AR-C, the Claimant has not requested a hearing or taken \nany action whatsoever to prosecute her claim for workers’ compensation benefits.      \n Subsequently, on or about March 29, 2023, the Respondents filed with the Commission a \nletter-request to dismiss this claim due to a lack of prosecution.  \nOn  that  same  date,  the  Commission  sent  a  notice  to  the Claimant’s  last  known  address \nlisted in the Commission’s file to provide her with notice of the Respondents’ motion to have her \nclaim dismissed.  Per this correspondence, the Claimant was given a deadline of twenty days for \nfiling a written response to the Respondents’ motion.  Said notice was mailed to the Claimant by \nboth certified and first-class mail via the United States Postal Service. \nInformation  received  by  the  Commission  from  the  Postal  Service  shows  that  the  above-\nreferenced notice was delivered to the Claimant’s last known address listed in the file and left at \n\nRochelle-Lewis-H206910 \n \n3 \n \nher  home  with  an  individual  on  April  3,  2023.    However,  the  signature  of  the  recipient  to  take \ndelivery of the notice letter is indecipherable.    \n Yet, there was no response from the Claimant. \nTherefore, per a hearing notice dated April 20, 2023, the Commission notified the parties \nthat a hearing was scheduled to address the Respondents’ motion to dismiss this claim for want of \nprosecution.    Said  hearing  was  set  for  May  17,  2023, at  2:30  p.m.,  at  the  Arkansas Workers’ \nCompensation Commission, in Little Rock, Arkansas.  The notice of hearing was sent to the parties \nin a comparable manner as described above.    \n A  hearing  was  in  fact  conducted  on  the  Respondents’  motion  to  dismiss  for  want  of \nprosecution.    The  Claimant  did  not  appear  at  the  hearing.    To  date,  there  has  been  no  response \nwhatsoever  from  the  Claimant.    However,  the  Respondents  appeared  through  their  attorney.  \nCounsel noted that the Claimant has not requested a hearing since the filing of the Form AR-C on \nSeptember  26,  2022,  and  she  has  not  taken  any  action  on  her  claim.    Counsel  argued  that  the \nClaimant  did  not  appear  at  the  hearing,  and  she  has  not  responded  to  the  notices  of  this \nCommission.  Counsel further argued that the Claimant has not objected to the motion to dismiss.  \nBased  on  the  foregoing  arguments,  counsel  asked  that  this  claim  be  dismissed  for  a  lack  of \nprosecution, without prejudice, per Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702 and Commission Rule 099.13. \nDiscussion \nThe record before me shows that a request for a hearing has not been filed by or on behalf \nof  the  Claimant  since  the  time  of  the  claim  in  September  2022,  which  occurred  more  than  six \nmonths ago.  Of significance, the Claimant did not appear at the dismissal hearing, and she has not \nobjected to her claim being dismissed or responded to the notices of this Commission.  \n\nRochelle-Lewis-H206910 \n \n4 \n \nHence,  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  shows  that  the  Claimant  has  abandoned  her \nclaim  for  workers’  compensation benefits,  considering  she  has  not  objected  to  her  claim  being \ndismissed.  More importantly, the Claimant has failed to make a bona fide request for a hearing \nsince the filing of the claim more than six months ago.    \nTherefore,  I  find  that  the  evidence  before  me  proves  that  the Respondents’  motion  to \ndismiss  this  claim  is  called  for  under  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-702  and Arkansas  Workers’ \nCompensation Commission Rule 099.13.  Said dismissal is without prejudice, to the refiling of it \nwithin the limitation period specified by law. \n                               FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nOn the basis of the record, I hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of \nlaw in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Commission  has  authority  of  this \nclaim.  \n \n2.         The parties were given reasonable notice of the motion and dismissal  \n                        hearing. \n   \n3. The evidence preponderates that the Claimant has failed to prosecute this    \n            claim under the provisions of Ark Code Ann. §11-9-702 and Commission  \n            Rule 099.13. \n \n4. The Respondents’ motion to dismiss is well founded. \n \n5.  This claim is hereby respectfully dismissed, without prejudice, under Ark.  \n            Code Ann. §11-9-702 and Rule 099.13, to the refiling of it within the period \nspecified by law.   \nORDER \n \n Following the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, this claim is hereby \nrespectfully dismissed under the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702 and Arkansas Workers’ \n\nRochelle-Lewis-H206910 \n \n5 \n \nCompensation  Commission  Rule  099.13,  without  prejudice,  to  the  refiling  of it  within  the \nlimitation period specified by law.  \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n                              _______________________________ \n               CHANDRA L. BLACK \n               Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H206910 AMANDA J. ROCHELLE-LEWIS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT TYSON POULTRY, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TYNET CORPORATION, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 18, 2023 Hearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Little Rock, P...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:07:47.223Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H206910-2023-05-18","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/ROCHELLE-LEWIS_AMANDA_H206910_20230518.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}