{"id":"alj-H300134-2024-04-12","awcc_number":"H300134","decision_date":"2024-04-12","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Angela Wilburn","employer_name":null,"title":"WILBURN VS. QUAPAW CARE & REHABILITATION CENTER, LLCAWCC# H300134April 12, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:5","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["knee"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WILBURN_ANGELA_H300134_20240412.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"WILBURN_ANGELA_H300134_20240412.pdf","text_length":8881,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO.: H300134 \n \n \nANGELA WILBURN, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                 CLAIMANT \n \nQUAPAW CARE & REHABILITATION  \nCENTER, LLC, A SUBSIDARY OF CENTRAL  \nARKANSAS NURSING CENTER, LLC,   \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT                                                                                                       \n \nINDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY \nOF NORTH AMERICA (PA),  \nINSURANCE CARRIER                                                                                        RESPONDENT \n  \nESIS, INC., \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR                                                                     RESPONDENT  \n                       \n \nOPINION FILED APRIL 12, 2024   \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Hot Springs, Garland County, \nArkansas. \n \nThe Claimant, pro se, did not appear for the hearing.  \n \nThe Respondents represented  by the  Honorable Eric  Newkirk, Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n                                                         Statement of the Case      \n \n A hearing was held on February 9, 2024, in the present matter pursuant to Dillard v. Benton \nCounty Sheriff’s Office,  87  Ark.  App.  379,  192  S.W.  3d  287  (2004),  to  determine  whether  the \nabove-referenced matter should be dismissed for failure to prosecute under the provisions of Ark. \nCode  Ann. §11-9-702 (Repl.  2012), and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission  Rule \n099.13.  \nAppropriate Notice of this hearing was tried on all parties to their last known address, in \nthe manner prescribed by law.   \n\nWILBURN – H300134 \n \n2 \n \nThe record consists of the transcript of the February 9, 2024, hearing and the documents \nheld therein.  Specifically, the Respondents’ Hearing Exhibit consisting of twenty totaled pages \nwas marked  as  Respondents’  Exhibit  1;  and  Commission’s  Exhibit  1  consisting  of  sixteen \nnumbered pages.     \n                                                                  Discussion \nOn January 6, 2023, the Claimant’s former attorney filed with the Commission a claim for  \nArkansas workers’ compensation benefits on  behalf  of  the  Claimant by  way  of  a Form  AR-C.  \nAccording  to  this  Form,  the Claimant alleged that she  sustained  injuries  to  her  left  knee/fibula, \nhips, right knee, both shoulders, and other whole body on November 17, 2022, while performing \nemployment duties for the respondent-employer.  Per this document, the Claimant’s then attorney \nrequested both initial and additional workers’ compensation benefits.  In fact, her former attorney \nchecked off all the boxes for every conceivable benefit under the law in connection with this claim.   \nAlso, on January 6, 2023, the attorney sent a letter to the Commission requesting that the \nCommission ask the Respondents to state their position within fifteen days.  Therefore, on January \n10, 2023,  the  respondent-carrier  filed  a  Form  AR-2  with  the  Commission saying that  the  claim \nwas accepted as compensable.   \nSubsequently, there was no activity on the claim.         \n  However, the Claimant’s attorney filed with the Commission a Motion to Withdraw from \nrepresenting the Claimant in this matter on July 14, 2023.  The Full Commission entered an order \non July 25, 2023, granting the Claimant’s attorney motion to withdraw from representing her on \nthis claim.   \nSince this time, the Claimant has remained unpresented/pro se.  Most significantly, there \nhas  been  no bona fide action  on  the  part  of  the Claimant to  prosecute her claim for workers’ \n\nWILBURN – H300134 \n \n3 \n \ncompensation benefits, or otherwise pursue a resolution to this matter since the filing of the Form \nAR-C.   \nAs  a  result,  on December 20, 2023,  the Respondents  filed with  the Commission a \nRespondents’ Motion to Dismiss for a lack of prosecution, along with a Brief in Support of Motion \nto Dismiss.  The Respondents notified the Claimant of their motion for dismissal of this claim by \nway of depositing a copy thereof in the mail with the United States Postal Service.  \nThe Commission sent a letter notice on December 20, 2023, to the Claimant informing her \nof the Respondents’ motion.  Said letter was mailed to the Claimant by both first-class and certified \nmail.  Per  this  correspondence, the  Claimant  was  given a  deadline of twenty days for  filing  a \nwritten response to the Respondents’ motion to dismiss.  \nHowever, the United States Postal Service informed the Commission on January 11, 2024, \nthat  they were  unable  to deliver  this  item  to  the Claimant.    The  postal  service  returned  this   \ncorrespondence to the Commission as “unclaimed.”  The letter notice sent to the Claimant by first- \nclass mail has not been returned to the Commission.  \nNevertheless, there was no response from the Claimant.   \nThe Commission sent a Hearing Notice dated January 9, 2024, to the parties letting them \nknow 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  certified  and  first-class  mail.  \nSaid hearing was scheduled for February 9, 2024, at 10:30 a.m., in Hot Springs, Arkansas. \nTracking information received by the Commission from the United States Postal Service \nshows that on January 18, 2018, they returned the certified mail to the Claimant because it was \n“unclaimed.”  However,  the  notice  sent  by  first-class  mail  has  not  been  returned  to  the \nCommission.  \n\nWILBURN – H300134 \n \n4 \n \nStill, there was no response 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 promptly prosecute her claim for workers’ \ncompensation  benefits.  Counsel further noted that  there  has  been  no  attempt  on  the  part  of the \nClaimant to move forward with a hearing since the filing of the Form AR-C, which was done on \nJanuary  6,  2023.  Counsel  indicated, among  other  things, that  this claim should  be dismissed, \nwithout prejudice due to all the afore reasons. \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 in January 2023, which occurred more than a year ago.  Moreover, Claimant the failed \nto appear at the hearing to object to her claim being dismissed, and she has not responded to the \nnotices of this Commission.  Under these circumstances, I am compelled to find that the evidence \npreponderates that the Claimant has abandoned her claim.  Therefore, per Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n702 and Rule 099.13 of this Commission, I find that this claim for workers’ compensation benefits \nshould be and is hereby respectfully dismissed, without prejudice to the refiling of it within the \nlimitation 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 \n\nWILBURN – H300134 \n \n5 \n \n2. The Respondents filed with the Commission a motion for dismissal of this \nclaim, for which a hearing was held. \n \n3. The Claimant has not requested a hearing since the filing of the Form AR-\nC over a year ago.  Hence, the evidence preponderates that the Claimant has \nfailed to prosecute her claim for workers’ compensation benefits.      \n \n4. Appropriate Notice of the dismissal hearing was attempted on all parties to \ntheir last 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, per Ark. Code  Ann. §11-9-702, and \nCommission Rule 099.13, to the refiling of it within the limitation period \nspecified by law.  \n \nORDER \n In  accordance  with  the  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of the  law set  forth  above,  this \nclaim is hereby dismissed per Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702, and Commission Rule 099.13, without \nprejudice, to the refiling of it, within the limitation period specified by law.  \n  IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n                              _______________________________ \n               CHANDRA L. BLACK \n               Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H300134 ANGELA WILBURN, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT QUAPAW CARE & REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC, A SUBSIDARY OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS NURSING CENTER, LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA (PA), INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT ESIS, INC.,","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:55:19.360Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H300134-2024-04-12","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WILBURN_ANGELA_H300134_20240412.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}