{"id":"alj-H301180-2024-02-22","awcc_number":"H301180","decision_date":"2024-02-22","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Lucy Glass","employer_name":"Gurdon Truck Stop & Travel Center","title":"GLASS VS. GURDON TRUCK STOP & TRAVEL CENTER AWCC# H301180 FEBRUARY 22, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:6","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["hip","shoulder","knee","cervical"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/GLASS_LUCY_H301180_20240222.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"GLASS_LUCY_H301180_20240222.pdf","text_length":8664,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n  \n                                                        AWCC CLAIM NO.: H301180 \n \nLUCY GLASS,   \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                CLAIMANT                                   \n \nGURDON TRUCK STOP & TRAVEL CENTER,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                           RESPONDENT  \n \nFIRST COMP. INSURANCE COMPANY,              \nINSURANCE CARRIER                                                                                       RESPONDENT \n \nMARKEL SERVICE, INC., \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR (TPA)                                                        RESPONDENT \n                                                                                                                                                                                  \n                                               \nOPINION FILED FEBRUARY 22, 2024    \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n  \nThe Claimant, pro se, did not appear at the hearing. \n \nRespondents represented by the Honorable Amelia Botteicher, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n                                                     STATEMENT OF THE CASE      \n \nThis  matter  comes  before  the  Commission  pursuant  to  the  Motion  to  Dismiss  filed  by \nRespondents.    A  hearing  on  the  motion  was  conducted  on  November  15,  2023,  in  Little  Rock, \nArkansas.  Thus, the sole issue for determination is whether this claim should be dismissed due to \nthe Claimant’s failure  to  prosecute  it  under  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-702  (Repl.  2012),  and/or \nArkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Rule 099.13. \n The record consists of the November 15, 2023, hearing transcript.  In order to adequately \naddress  this  matter  under  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-705(a)(1)  (Repl.  2012)(Commission  must \n“conduct the hearing  . . . in a manner which best ascertains the rights of the parties”), and without \n\nGlass – H301180 \n \n2 \n \nobjection,  I  have  blue-backed  to  the correspondence from the Commission’s file on this  claim, \nconsisting of nine pages.  In accordance with Sapp v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2010 Ark. App. 517, ___ \nS.W.3d ___, these documents have been served on the parties in conjunction with this opinion. \nReasonable notice of the dismissal hearing was had on all the parties in the manner set by \nlaw.   \n No testimony was taken at the hearing. \n                            Background \nThe record reflects the following procedural history: \nThe  Claimant  filed  a  Form  AR-C  with  the Commission  on  February  15,  2023,  asserting \nentitlement to workers’ compensation benefits.    Per this  document,  the  Claimant  sustained  an \naccidental work-related injury was January 14, 2023.  According to this document, the Claimant \nsustained injuries to her right hip, right shoulder, and right knee.  The Claimant marked all of the \nboxes for workers’ compensation benefits.  Yet, at that time, there was no request for a hearing \nmade.       \nOn March 13, 2023, the Respondents filed a Form AR-2 with the Commission accepting \nliability of this claim in its entirety.  Specifically, claims assistant stated: “Denying cervical injury \nand ONLY accepting the right hip, right knee and right shoulder injuries.”     \nSince the filing of the Form AR-C, the Claimant has not attempted to pursue or otherwise \nresolve this claim for workers’ compensation benefits. \nOn September 15, 2023, the Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss with the Commission \naccompanied by a certificate of service to the Claimant indicating that they served a copy of the \npleading on her by depositing a copy thereof in the United States Mail.   \n\nGlass – H301180 \n \n3 \n \nThe  Commission  sent  a  letter  advising  the  Claimant  of the  Respondents’  motion  on \nSeptember 18, 2023. This correspondence was sent both certified mail and first-class mail.  Per \nthis letter, the Claimant was given twenty (20) days from the date of that letter to file a response \nto the motion.  \nThe  letter  mailed  to  the  Claimant  by  first  class  mail  has  not  been  returned  to  the \nCommission.    However,  the  letter  mailed  to  the  Claimant  by  certified  mail  was  left  with  an \nindividual at her last known address listed with the Commission.  The signature of the recipient on \nthe tracking information received from the United States Postal Service is illegible.   \nStill, to date, there has been no response from the Claimant in this regard. \nOn October 12, 2023, the Commission sent a Notice of Hearing to the parties letting them \nknow that a hearing was scheduled for November 15, 2023, on the Respondents’ motion to dismiss. \nSaid notice was mailed to the Claimant both by certified and first-class mail.       \nTracking information received by the Commission from the United States Postal Service \nshows that the hearing notice mailed to the Claimant by certified mail was left with an individual \nat her last known address.  Once again, the signature of the recipient on the tracking information \nreceived from the United States Postal Service is illegible.   \nStill, there was no response from the Claimant.   \nHowever,  a  hearing  was  in  fact  conducted on the Respondents’ motion  to  dismiss  as \nscheduled.  The Claimant failed to appear at the hearing to object to  her claim being dismissed.  \nNevertheless, the Respondents’ attorney moved that the claim be dismissed under Ark. Code Ann. \n§11-9-702 and Commission Rule 099.13 due to the Claimant’s failure to prosecute said claim for \nworkers’ compensation benefits.  \n\nGlass – H301180 \n \n4 \n \nReview of the evidence shows that the Claimant has failed to respond to the written notices \nof  this  Commission  and  did  not  appear  at  the  hearing  to  object  to  the  dismissal  of  her  claim.  \nMoreover, since the filing of the Form AR-C in February 2023, the Claimant has not requested a \nhearing.    Considering  all the  foregoing,  I  am  persuaded  to  conclude  that  the  Claimant  has \nabandoned this claim for workers’ compensation benefits.  \nAccordingly,  based  on  my  review  of  the  documentary  evidence,  and  all  other  matters \nproperly before the Commission, I find that the Respondents’ motion  to  dismiss  this  claim  is \nwarranted under the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702 and Rule 099.13 of this Commission.  \nSaid  dismissal  is without  prejudice,  to  the  refiling  of  this  claim  within  the  limitation  period \nspecified by law. \n                                  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nBased on the record, I hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law \nin accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this \nclaim. \n \n2. Claimant filed a Form AR-C with the Commission on February 15, 2023, \nin  this  matter  asserting  the  Claimant’s entitlement to workers’ \ncompensation benefits due to an incident occurring at work in January 2023. \n \n3. Since this time, and the filing of the Form AR-C, the Claimant has failed to \nmake a bona fide request for a hearing in this matter.    \n \n4. The Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss this claim in September 2023. \n \n5.         Reasonable notice of the Motion to Dismiss and hearing was had on all the \nparties. The Claimant has failed to respond to the notices of this Commission and \ndid not appear at the hearing to object to her claim being dismissed.   \n \n6.         The evidence preponderates that the Respondents’ motion for dismissal for   \n            a lack of prosecution is warranted.   \n \n7.        That the Respondents’ motion to dismiss is hereby granted pursuant to Ark.  \n\nGlass – H301180 \n \n5 \n \nCode Ann. §11-9-702 and Rule 099.13 without prejudice, to the refiling of \nthe claim within the specified limitation period.   \n \nORDER \nIn  accordance  with  the  foregoing  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law,  this  claim  is \nhereby dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702, and Commission Rule \n099.13 to the refiling of it within the specified limitation period.        \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n   \n                                                                     ________________________________ \n                                                                                     CHANDRA L. BLACK  \n                                                    Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWCC CLAIM NO.: H301180 LUCY GLASS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT GURDON TRUCK STOP & TRAVEL CENTER, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT FIRST COMP. INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT MARKEL SERVICE, INC., THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR (TPA) RESPONDENT OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 22, 2024 H...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:57:33.159Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H301180-2024-02-22","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/GLASS_LUCY_H301180_20240222.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}