{"id":"alj-H208573-2025-06-20","awcc_number":"H208573","decision_date":"2025-06-20","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Donna Jackson","employer_name":"Stagehands LLC","title":"JACKSON VS. STAGEHANDS LLC AWCC# H208573 June 20, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:7","denied:3"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Jackson_Donna_H208573_20250620.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Jackson_Donna_H208573_20250620.pdf","text_length":9449,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H208573 \n \n \nDONNA JACKSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nSTAGEHANDS LLC, \n EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nOHIO SECURITY INS. CO., \n CARRIER RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED JUNE 20, 2025 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge  O.  Milton  Fine  II  on June  19,  2025, in \nLittle Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant pro se. \n \nRespondents represented  by  Mr. Jason  M.  Ryburn,  Ryburn  Law  Firm, Attorneys \nat Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This  matter  comes  before  the  Commission  on the Motion  to Dismiss  by \nRespondents.  A hearing on the motion was conducted on June 19, 2025, in Little \nRock, Arkansas.  The testimony of Claimant was taken in the case.  Admitted into \nevidence were Commission Exhibit 1 (see Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(1) (Repl. \n2012)(Commission  must  “conduct  the  hearing  .  .  .  in  a  manner  which  best \nascertains the rights of the parties”) and Respondents’ Exhibit 1, forms, pleadings, \nand correspondence related to this claim, consisting of 31 pages; and Claimant’s \nExhibit 1, medical records, consisting of 17 pages. \n\nJACKSON – H208573 \n \n2 \n \n The record shows the following procedural history: \n Per the First Report of Injury or Illness filed on December 9, 2022, Claimant \npurportedly  suffered a  shoulder injury at  work  on November 25, 2022,  when she \nwas struck by a metal pole that was being handled by a co-worker.  According to \nthe amended Forms AR-2  that  were filed  on December  15,  2022, January  25, \n2023,  and  August  29,  2023, Respondents accepted  the  claim as compensable \nand paid medical and indemnity benefits pursuant thereto. \n On December  21,  2022, through  then-counsel  Laura  Beth  York, Claimant \nfiled  a  Form  AR-C.    Therein, Claimant requested  the  full  range  of  initial  and \nadditional  benefits  and alleged  that  she  suffered  “injuries  to  her  left  shoulder, \nback,  and  other  whole  body”  on  the  date  in  question.   No  hearing  request \naccompanied this filing. \n On  March  27,  2023,  York  moved  to  withdraw  from  her  representation  of \nClaimant.  In an Order entered on April 7, 2023, the Full Commission granted the \nmotion under AWCC Advisory 2003-2. \n Claimant, now pro se, filed another Form AR-C on July 10, 2023.  Therein, \nshe stated that her back and shoulder were injured at Robinson Auditorium when \na co-worker dropped a two-foot length of pipe from 100 feet above in “retileation” \n[sic].    Per  an  order  entered on  October  28, 2024,  the  Medical  Cost  Containment \nDivision of the Commission granted Claimant’s request for a one-time  change  of \nphysician  to  Dr.  Nicole  Rinewalt,  and  scheduled  an  appointment  for  her  with  the \n\nJACKSON – H208573 \n \n3 \n \nphysician  for  November  13,  2024.    The  next  day,  November  14,  2024,  the \nCommission  received  written  correspondence  from  Claimant  that  reads:  “I am \nrequesting a hearing to get Medical bill and Los[t] wages paid for the anxi[e]ty and \nPTSD that has incur[r]ed since injury.” \n Due  to  the  failure  to  set  up a  legal advisor  conference  and/or  a  mediation \nconference,  the  Legal  Advisory  Division  asked  the  Clerk  of  the  Commission  to \nreassign  the  file  to  the  Adjudication  Division.    The  file  was  assigned  to  me  on \nJanuary 8, 2025; and on January 14, 2025, my office sent preliminary notices and \nprehearing questionnaires to the parties.  Claimant filed her Preliminary Notice on \nJanuary 27, 2025.  Therein, she represented that while the value of her claim was \nin  excess  of  $2,500.00,  she  was  amenable  to  mediation.    She  also  furnished  a \nsigned  medical  release.    Respondents’  counsel  entered  his  appearance  on \nFebruary  14,  2025.    Through  his  client’s  Preliminary  Notice,  counsel  likewise \nagreed  to  voluntary  mediation.    As  a  result,  on  February  20,  2025,  the  file  was \ntransferred   back   to   the   Legal   Advisory   Division   to   conduct   the   mediation.  \nHowever,   on   February   28,   2025,   the   mediatory   returned   the   file   to   the \nCommission’s general files because of the parties’ unwillingness to mediate or \nlitigate the claim at that time. \n The  record  reflects  that  nothing  further  took  place  on  the  claim  until April \n22, 2025.  On that date, Respondents filed the instant motion, asking for dismissal \nof the claim under AWCC R. 099.13 because Claimant had not been prosecuting \n\nJACKSON – H208573 \n \n4 \n \nher claim.   The  file  was  reassigned  to me  that  same day; and also  on  that  date, \nmy office wrote Claimant, asking for a response to the motion within 20 days.  The \nletter was sent by first class and certified mail to the Little Rock, Arkansas address \nfor Claimant  that was listed in the file and on her Forms AR-C.  A “John Jackson” \nsigned  for  the  certified  letter  on  April  26,  2025;  and  the  first-class  letter  was  not \nreturned.  Regardless, no response to the motion was forthcoming from Claimant.  \nOn May 14, 2025, a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was scheduled for June 19, \n2025, at 9:30 a.m. at the Commission in Little Rock.  The Notice of Hearing was \nsent to Claimant by certified and first-class mail to the same address as before.  In \nthis instance, the certified mailing was returned to the Commission, unclaimed, on \nJune 12, 2025.  But once again, the first-class mailing was not returned. \n The  hearing  on  the Motion  to Dismiss  proceeded  as  scheduled.   Both \nparties appeared at  the  hearing pursuant to the  Notice  of  Hearing,  and  Claimant \ngave   testimony.      Respondents appeared   through   counsel   and   argued   for \ndismissal under the foregoing authority. \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After  reviewing  the  record  as  a  whole,  to  include  documents  and  other \nmatters  properly  before  the  Commission,  the  following Findings  of Fact  and \nConclusions of Law are hereby made in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n704 (Repl. 2012): \n\nJACKSON – H208573 \n \n5 \n \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction \nover this claim. \n2. All parties received notice of the Motion to Dismiss and the hearing \nthereon pursuant to AWCC R. 099.13. \n3. Respondents  have not proven  by  a preponderance  of the  evidence \nthat  Claimant  has  failed  to  prosecute  this  claim under AWCC  R. \n099.13. \n4. The Motion to Dismiss is hereby denied. \n5. Claimant has requested a hearing on the issue of her entitlement to \ninitial and additional benefits. \n6. This claim will proceed to a hearing on the merits. \nIII.  DISCUSSION \n AWCC R. 099.13 reads: \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 \nSee  generally  Johnson  v.  Triple  T  Foods,  55  Ark.  App.  83,  85,  929  S.W.2d  730 \n(1996). \n As the moving party, Respondents under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(3) \n(Repl. 2012) must prove their entitlement to the relief requested—dismissal of the \nclaim—by a preponderance of the  evidence.    This  standard  means  the  evidence \n\nJACKSON – H208573 \n \n6 \n \nhaving greater weight or convincing force.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 \nS.W.3d 415; Smith v. Magnet Cove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 \n(1947). \n A claimant’s testimony is never considered uncontroverted.  Nix  v. Wilson \nWorld  Hotel,  46  Ark.  App.  303,  879  S.W.2d  457  (1994).    The  determination  of  a \nwitness’ credibility and how much weight to accord to that person’s testimony are \nsolely up to the Commission.  White v. Gregg Agricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, \n37  S.W.3d  649  (2001).    The  Commission  must  sort  through  conflicting  evidence \nand determine the true facts.  Id.  In so doing, the Commission is not required to \nbelieve  the  testimony  of  the  claimant  or  any  other  witness,  but  may  accept  and \ntranslate  into  findings  of  fact  only  those  portions  of  the  testimony  that  it  deems \nworthy of belief.  Id. \n Claimant testified that the reason that she had not renewed her request for \na  hearing  on  her  claim  after the  mediation  was  cancelled was  that (1)  she  was \nseeking counsel; (2) she understood from the Legal Advisor whom she consulted \nthat there was nothing more for her to do at this point; (3) and she “was doing \nwell” and (4) she suffers from anxiety.  Claimant requested a hearing on her claim, \nin the event that it is not dismissed. \n After  consideration  of  the  evidence,  I  find  that  while  both  Claimant  and \nRespondents  were  given  reasonable  notice  of  the  motion  to  dismiss  hearing \n\nJACKSON – H208573 \n \n7 \n \nunder Rule 13, she has not yet abridged that rule.  The Motion to Dismiss is thus \ndenied. \n Prehearing  questionnaires  will  be  immediately  issued  to  the  parties;  and \nthis claim will proceed to a full hearing on the merits. \nCONCLUSION \n Based  on  the  Findings  of  Fact  and  Conclusions  of  Law  set  forth  above, \nRespondents’ Motion to Dismiss is hereby respectfully 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. H208573 DONNA JACKSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT STAGEHANDS LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT OHIO SECURITY INS. CO., CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JUNE 20, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on June 19, 2025, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Ark...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:39:51.456Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H208573-2025-06-20","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Jackson_Donna_H208573_20250620.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}