{"id":"alj-H300022-2023-08-14","awcc_number":"H300022","decision_date":"2023-08-14","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Yalonda Gardener","employer_name":"Rivercliff Co., Inc","title":"GARDENER VS. RIVERCLIFF CO., INC. AWCC# H300022 AUGUST 14, 2023","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:5","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/GARDENER_YALONDA_H300022_20230814.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"GARDENER_YALONDA_H300022_20230814.pdf","text_length":8216,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO.: H300022 \n \n \nYALONDA GARDNER, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                 CLAIMANT \n \nRIVERCLIFF CO., INC.,   \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT                                    \n \nBRIDGEFIELD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,  \nINSURANCE CARRIER                                                                                        RESPONDENT \n  \nSUMMIT CONSULTING, LLC, \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR                                                                     RESPONDENT  \n                       \n \nOPINION FILED AUGUST 14, 2023   \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se, failed to appear at the hearing.  \n \nRespondents  represented  by  the  Honorable  Jason  M.  Ryburn,  Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n                                                         Statement of the Case      \n \n A hearing was held on August 9, 2023 in the present matter pursuant to Dillard v. Benton \nCounty Sheriff’s Office, 87 Ark. App. 379, 192 S.W. 3d 287 (2004), for a determination of whether \nthe above-referenced matter should be dismissed for failure to prosecute under the provisions of \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-702 (Repl. 2012) and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Rule \n099.13.  \nAppropriate Notice of this hearing was attempted on all parties to their last known address, \nin the manner prescribed by law.   \n\nGardner – H300022 \n \n2 \n \nThe  record  consists  of  the  transcript  of  the  August  9,  2023,  hearing  and  the  documents \ncontained therein. Additionally, the entire Commission’s file has been made a part of the record.  \nIt is hereby incorporated herein by reference.    \n                                                                  Discussion \n On January 3, 2023, the Claimant filed with the Commission a claim for Arkansas workers’ \ncompensation  benefits  by  way  of  a  Form  AR-C.    The  Claimant  alleged  that  she  sustained \ncompensable  injuries  on  October  17,  2022,  while  her  performing  employment  duties  for  the \nrespondent-employer.  The Claimant asked for both initial and additional workers’ compensation \nbenefits.  In fact, the Claimant checked all the boxes for every conceivable benefit under the law \nin connection with this claim. \n The  claims  adjuster  sent  a  letter  to  the  Commission  on  January  5,  2023, stating,  “In \nresponse  to  the  Form  AR-C  filed  in  this  matter,  the  Respondents  have  accepted  the  claim  as \nMedical only as no lost time from work.”  Additionally, the respondent-insurance carrier filed a \nForm AR-2 with the Commission on January 24, 2023, accepting this as a compensable medical \nonly claim for injuries to the Claimant’s lower legs.    \n On February 1, 2023, the Respondents’ attorney entered an appearance via correspondent \nto the Commission.  Counsel offered his full cooperation on behalf of his client and invited the \nClaimant or his representative to contact him to resolve any issues that could be resolved without \na hearing.     \n  However,  there  was  no  action  taken  by  the  Claimant  to  resolve  her  claim,  nor  did  the \nClaimant file a request for a hearing.  Therefore, the Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss with \nthe Commission on June 6, 2023.  This pleading was accompanied by a certificate of service to \n\nGardner – H300022 \n \n3 \n \nthe Claimant.  Specifically, the Respondents mailed a copy of this document to the Claimant via \nthe United States Postal Service.  \nThe Commission sent a letter-notice to the Claimant by mailing it to her last known address \nwith the Commission on June 8, 2023.  Said letter was sent by first-class and certified mail.  Per \nthis  correspondence,  the  Claimant  was  given  a  deadline  of  twenty  days,  for  filing  a  written \nresponse to the Respondents’ motion for dismissal. \nThus far, there has been no response from the Claimant.   \nHowever, the United States Postal Service informed the Commission on June 8, 2023, that \nthey were unable to locate any delivery information on this item,  \nTherefore, pursuant to a Hearing Notice dated July 7, 2023, the Commission notified the \nparties that a hearing was scheduled to address the Respondents’ motion to dismiss this claim due \nto  a  lack  of  prosecution.    The  notice  was  sent  to  the  Claimant  via  first-class  and  certified  mail.  \nSaid hearing was scheduled for August 9, 2023, at the Commission in Little Rock, Arkansas.  \nThe  Hearing  Notice  mailed  to  the  Claimant  via  certified  mail  was  delivered  to  the \nClaimant’s home on July 10, 2023.  However, the identity of the individual taking delivery of this \nitem is unclear because the recipient’s signature as it appears on the return receipt is illegible.   \nStill, there was no reply from the Claimant.  \n Subsequently, a hearing was in fact conducted on the Respondents’ motion for dismissal \nas scheduled.  The Claimant failed to appear at the dismissal hearing.  However, the Respondents \nappeared through their attorney.   \nCounsel  noted  that  the  Claimant  has  failed  to  timely  prosecute  her claim  for  workers’ \ncompensation  benefits  since  the  filing  of  the  Form  AR-C  in  January  2023.    Therefore,  counsel \nmoved  that  this  claim  be  dismissed  under  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-702  and Arkansas  Workers’ \n\nGardner – H300022 \n \n4 \n \nCompensation Commission Rule 099.13, without prejudice due to a lack of prosecution of the case \nby the Claimant. \nThe record before me proves that the Claimant has failed to timely prosecute her claim for \nworkers’ compensation benefits.  The Claimant has not requested a hearing since the filing of the \nForm AR-C.  She failed to appear at the hearing to object to her claim being dismissed and she has \nnot responded to the notices of this Commission.  Under these circumstances, I am compelled to \nfind that the evidence preponderates that the Claimant has failed to promptly prosecute her claim \nin the manner set forth under the law.  Therefore, per Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702 and Rule 099.13 \nof this Commission, I find that this claim should be and is hereby respectfully dismissed, without \nprejudice to the refiling of it with the limitation period specified by law.   \n                            FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nOn  the  basis  of  the  record  as  a  whole,  I  hereby  make  the  following  findings  of  fact  and \nconclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1.        The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this \nclaim.  \n \n2. The Respondents filed with the Commission, a motion for dismissal of this \nclaim due to a lack of prosecution, for which a hearing was held. \n \n3. The Claimant has not requested a hearing since the filing of the Form AR-\nC,   which   was   done   over   eight   months   ago.   Hence,   the   evidence \npreponderates  that  the  Claimant  has  failed  to  prosecute  her  claim  for \nworkers’ compensation benefits.      \n \n4. Appropriate Notice of the dismissal hearing was had on all parties to their \nlast known address, in the manner prescribed by law.    \n \n            5. The Respondents’ motion to dismiss this claim for a lack of prosecution is \nhereby granted, without prejudice, pursuant to Arkansas Code Ann. §11-9-\n702 and Commission Rule 099.13, to the refiling of it within the limitation \nperiod specified by law.  \n \n \n\nGardner – H300022 \n \n5 \n \nORDER \nIn accordance with the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, this claim \nis   hereby   dismissed   pursuant   to   Arkansas   Code   Ann.   11-9-702   and   Arkansas Workers’ \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               HON. CHANDRA L. BLACK \n               Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H300022 YALONDA GARDNER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT RIVERCLIFF CO., INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT BRIDGEFIELD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT SUMMIT CONSULTING, LLC, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED AUGUST 14, 2023 Hearing hel...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:03:50.803Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H300022-2023-08-14","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/GARDENER_YALONDA_H300022_20230814.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}