{"id":"alj-H300759-2023-05-09","awcc_number":"H300759","decision_date":"2023-05-09","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Amber Fontenot","employer_name":"Resolute Products U.S., Inc","title":"FONTENOT VS. RESOLUTE PRODUCTS U.S., INC. AWCC# H300759 MAY 9, 2023","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:2","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/FONTENOT_AMBER_H300759_20230509.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"FONTENOT_AMBER_H300759_20230509.pdf","text_length":5594,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H300759 \n \n \nAMBER V. FONTENOT,  \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nRESOLUTE PRODUCTS U.S., INC., \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT \n \nAMERICAN ZURICH INS. CO./ \nZURICH INS. CO., \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                             RESPONDENT \n \n                                                                                                                     \n \nAMENDED OPINION AND ORDER TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE \nFILED MAY 9, 2023 \n \nHearing conducted before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (the Commission), \nAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mike Pickens, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nThe claimant, Ms. Amber Fontenot, is represented by Mr. Gregory R. Giles, Moore, Giles & \nMatteson, L.L.P., Texarkana, Miller County, Arkansas, who waived appearance at the hearing. \n \nThe respondents were represented by the Honorable Michael Stiles, Newkirk & Jones, Little \nRock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.  \n \n \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n     A hearing was conducted on Tuesday, May 9, 2023, to determine whether this claim should be \nvoluntarily dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution at the claimant’s request pursuant \nto Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-702(a)(4)  (2023  Lexis  Replacement)  and  Commission  Rule  099.13 \n(2023 Lexis Replacement). \n     The claimant advised her attorney she wished to voluntarily dismiss her workers’ compensation \nclaim without prejudice. Therefore, by letter motion filed with the Commission on February 22, \n2023, the claimant’s attorney requested the claim be dismissed without prejudice at the claimant’s \n\nAmber Fontenot, AWCC No. H300759 \n \n2 \n \nrequest,  “due  to  circumstances  beyond  her  control.” (See,  Commission’s  file.). The  claimant’s \nattorney copied the respondent insurer on this letter. Pursuant to the applicable law the claimant \nwas  mailed  a  copy  of  this  letter  motion  to  dismiss  (MTD)  via  the  United  States  Postal  Service \n(USPS), First Class Mail, Return Receipt Requested; and both her and the respondents’ attorneys \nwere copied on this letter. The Commission set a hearing on the motion, duly and legally notifying \nthe claimant, as well as both her and the respondents’ attorney of the date, time, and place of the \nsubject hearing. The claimant’s attorney advised that he and the claimant waived appearance at the \nsubject hearing. \n     The record herein consists of the hearing transcript and any and all exhibits contained therein \nand attached thereto, as well as the Commission’s entire file in this matter. \n \nDISCUSSION \n     Consistent  with Ark.  Code  Ann.§  11-9-702(a)(4),  as  well  as  our  court  of  appeals’  ruling  in \nDillard vs. Benton County Sheriff’s Office, 87 Ark. App. 379, 192 S.W.3d 287 (Ark. App. 2004), \nthe Commission scheduled and conducted a hearing on the respondents’ MTD. Rather than recite \na detailed analysis of the record, suffice it to say the preponderance of the evidence introduced at \nthe hearing and contained in the record conclusively reveals the claimant has failed and/or refused \nto prosecute her claim at this time, and she requests the voluntary dismissal of the claim. According \nto the respondents’ attorney as stated on the record at the hearing, this claim was initially accepted \nas a medical only claim and, upon information and belief the claimant continues to work with the \nrespondent-employer. \n     Therefore,  after  a  thorough  consideration  of  the  facts,  issues,  the  applicable  law,  and  other \nrelevant matters of record, I hereby make the following: \n\nAmber Fontenot, AWCC No. H300759 \n \n3 \n \n \n \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. \n \n2. After having been mailed due and legal notice of the hearing on the claimant’s voluntary \nMTD, both the claimant and her attorney waived appearance at the hearing. \n \n3. The  claimant  has  requested  her  claim  be  voluntarily  dismissed  without  prejudice  at  this \ntime, “due to circumstances beyond her control.” Moreover, she has not requested a hearing \nwithin the last six (6) months, and she has not otherwise taken any action(s) to prosecute \nher claim. \n \n4. Therefore, the respondents’ voluntarily MTD without prejudice filed on February 22, 2023, \nis GRANTED; and this claim hereby is dismissed without prejudice to its refiling pursuant \nto  the  deadlines  prescribed  by Ark.  Code  Ann.  Section  11-9-702(a)  and  (b),  and \nCommission Rule 099.13. \n \n     This Order shall not be construed to prohibit the claimant, her attorney, any attorney she may \nretain in the future, or anyone acting legally and on her behalf, from refiling the claim if it is \nrefiled within the applicable time periods prescribed by Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(a) and (b). \n     The respondents hereby are ordered to pay the court reporter’s invoice within twenty (20) \ndays of its receipt thereof. \n     IT IS SO ORDERED. \n                                                                     \n____________________________                                                                      \n                                                                        Mike Pickens \n                                                                         Administrative Law Judge \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMP/mp","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H300759 AMBER V. FONTENOT, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT RESOLUTE PRODUCTS U.S., INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT AMERICAN ZURICH INS. CO./ ZURICH INS. CO., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE FILED MAY 9, 2023 Hearing conducted befor...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:07:15.870Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H300759-2023-05-09","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/FONTENOT_AMBER_H300759_20230509.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}