{"id":"alj-H208665-2023-12-18","awcc_number":"H208665","decision_date":"2023-12-18","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Alesha Cantrell","employer_name":"United Parcel Service, Inc","title":"CANTRELL VS. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. AWCC# H208665 DECEMBER 18, 2023","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:5","granted:5"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","knee","hip"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Cantrell_Alesha_H208665_20231218.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Cantrell_Alesha_H208665_20231218.pdf","text_length":5611,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H208665 \n \nALESHA CANTRELL, EMPLOYEE  CLAIMANT \n \nUNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., \nEMPLOYER                                                                                               RESPONDENT \n \nLM INSURANCE CORPORATION, \nEMPLOYER                                                                                               RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED DECEMBER 18, 2023 \n \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge Steven Porch on December 15, 2023, in Forrest \nCity, St. Francis County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented himself Pro Se. \n \nThe  Respondents  were  represented  by  Mr.  David  Jones,  Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This  matter  comes  before  the  Commission  on  a  motion  to  dismiss  filed  by  the \nRespondent on December 8, 2023. A hearing was set on December 15, 2023, in Forrest \nCity,  Arkansas.  Claimant  alleges  she  has  sustained  compensable  injuries  to  her  right \nshoulder,  right  knee,  right  hip,  and  right  thigh  on  November  3,  2022.  Claimant  was \nrepresented by Ms. Laura Beth York until she filed a motion to withdraw as counsel on \nMay 22, 2023. This motion was granted by the Commission on June 1, 2023. No request \nfor a hearing has been made by the Claimant. A notice for the motion to dismiss hearing \nwas  received at  the home  the  Claimant  listed  as  her address  on September 23,  2023. \nThe  notice  listed  the  Quorum  Courtroom  as  the  location  for  the  hearing but  we  were \nmoved  to  the  upstairs  courtroom.  A  sign  was  placed  on  the  Quorum  Courtroom  door \nlisting the new upstairs location. Respondents counsel, David Jones,  went downstairs to \n\nCANTRELL H208665 \n \n \n2 \nsee if the Claimant could be located. I did my own personal search for Claimant a few \nminutes  after  the  10:30  am  start  time  trying  to  locate  Claimant  with  no success.  The \nhearing began approximately 20 minutes after the official start time when the Claimant \ncould not be located. Respondents then went forward with their motion.  \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After reviewing the record as a whole, including Respondents’ Exhibit 1, thirty-eight \npages  of  non-medical  records,  Commission  Exhibit  1,  one  page  notice  of  hearing, \nCommission Exhibit 2, one page notice that was placed on the Quorum Courtroom door, \nand the argument of Respondents’ counsel, I hereby make the following findings of fact \nand conclusions of law in accordance 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).   \n\nCANTRELL H208665 \n \n \n3 \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 \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 The evidence reflects that Claimant’s injury occurred on November 3, 2022, when \nshe dropped off a package and had to run from a dog that resulted in injuries to her right \nthigh,  right  hip,  right  knee  and  right  shoulder.  Respondents  accepted  this  claim  as \ncompensable and paid benefits. Since Claimant filed his Form C on December 13, 2022, \nand the subsequent withdrawal of Claimant’s formal counsel, Laura Beth York, this claim \nhas been inactive. After considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondents motion \nshould  be  granted under  Rule  13.  Thus,  I  find  that  the  Respondent has  proven  by  the \npreponderance of the evidence that its motion should be granted. \n \n \n\nCANTRELL H208665 \n \n \n4 \nCONCLUSION \n Based  on  the  Findings  of  Fact  and  Conclusions  of  Law  set  forth  above, \nRespondent’s Motion 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. H208665 ALESHA CANTRELL, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT LM INSURANCE CORPORATION, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED DECEMBER 18, 2023 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge Steven Porch on December 15, 2023, in Forrest C...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:59:42.974Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H208665-2023-12-18","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Cantrell_Alesha_H208665_20231218.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}