{"id":"alj-H301388-2025-12-05","awcc_number":"H301388","decision_date":"2025-12-05","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Faith Lawson","employer_name":"United Parcel Service, Inc","title":"LAWSON VS. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. AWCC# H301388 December 05, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:5","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["back","lumbar"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/LAWSON_FAITH_H301388_20251205.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"LAWSON_FAITH_H301388_20251205.pdf","text_length":13090,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO.: H301388 \n \n \nFAITH LAWSON, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                 CLAIMANT \n \nUNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT                                                                                                       \n \nLM INSURANCE CORPORATION, \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                       RESPONDENT                                                                      \n          \n                                                                                              \nOPINION FILED DECEMBER 5, 2025   \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in El Dorado, Union County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se, did not appear for the dismissal hearing.         \n \nRespondents represented  by the Honorable David C.  Jones, Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n                                                         Statement of the Case      \n \n A  hearing  was  held  on October  14, 2025,  in  the above-referenced  matter pursuant  to \nDillard v. Benton County Sheriff’s Office, 87 Ark. App. 379, 192 S.W. 3d 287 (2004), to determine \nwhether this case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute under the provisions of Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-702 (Repl.  2012), and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission  Rule  099.13 \n(now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d)). \nAppropriate notice of this hearing was tried on all parties to their last known address, in \nthe manner instructed by law.   \nNo testimony was taken. \nThe record consists of the hearing transcript of October 14, 2025, and the documents held \n\nLawson – H301388 \n \n2 \n \ntherein.  Commission’s Exhibit 1 consisting of two pages\n1\n has been marked, accordingly; and the \nRespondents introduced into evidence an exhibit consisting of sixty-nine numbered pages, which \nwas thus marked Respondents’ Exhibit 1.  Both exhibits were introduced into evidence without \nobjection.  \n                                                               Background \n The procedural history of this claim is as follows: \n The Claimant has been employed with UPS since 2018 as a package care delivery driver.  \nShe was delivering and removing a package from the rear of her package car when she felt a pop \non her back.  There was no dispute about her injury.  The Respondents accepted it as compensable, \nand payments on benefits were started.  Of note,  the Claimant at one point had two  claims that \noverlapped.    The other prior overlapping claim is  AWCC  No.:H203243,  with  an  injury  date  of \nApril 26, 2022.  That claim was dismissed pursuant to my Opinion filed on May 22, 2024.  \nAbout  the  present  claim  before  the  Commission,  the Claimant’s former attorney filed  a \nForm  AR-C  with  the  Commission on  June 28,  2023,  alleging  that  the Claimant  sustained  a \ncompensable injury on January 17, 2023, while working for the respondent-employer.  The present \nclaim is AWCC No.:H301388.  According to this document, the Claimant provided the following \ndescription  of  her  work-related accidental injury: “Claimant was injured during the course and \nscope of her employment.  Claimant sustained injuries to her back and other whole body.” Per the \nForm AR-C, the Claimant requested both initial and additional workers’ compensation benefits.      \n  On  February  28,  2023,  the Respondents’ case manager filed  a  Form  AR-2,  with  the \nCommission accepting compensability of the claim for a compensable lower lumbar/back injury.   \n \n \n1\n Commission’s Exhibit 1 was inadvertently left out of the hearing transcript.  Therefore, it has been blue \nbacked and made a part of the record and marked accordingly. \n\nLawson – H301388 \n \n3 \n \nThe Respondents  filed  an  amended  Form  AR-2  with  the  Commission April  13,  2023.    Per  this \namended form, the Respondents reported that the claim was compensable and that temporary total \ndisability benefits had been started and that the claim was ongoing at that point.  It appears that \nthe primary purpose for filing this amendment was to specify the Claimant’s correct compensation \nrates.   \n On September 15, 2023, the Claimant’s attorney filed a request for hearing on the within \nclaim and the other claim (AWCC No.:H203243) based on a dispute at that point which involved \nwhether the Claimant  was  entitled  to  back  surgery.  The  files  were  assigned  to  my  office  for \nadjudication  of this  issue.    However,  the  Respondents approved  the  request  for  the  Claimant  to \nundergo surgery.  As a result, counsel for the Claimant withdrew her request for a hearing and the \nclaims were returned to the Commission’s general files. \n Subsequently, on February 20, 2024, the Claimant’s attorney filed a motion to withdraw \nfrom representing the Claimant in both claims.  On March 20, 2024, the Full Commission entered \nan order granting the motion.    \n The Claimant has not requested a hearing since the filing of her request for a hearing in \nSeptember 2023, but it was later withdrawn.  This action clearly occurred more than six (6) months \nago. \nTherefore, on or about July 11, 2025, the Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss and Brief \nin Support of the Motion, with the Commission.  The Respondents notified the Claimant of said \nmotion per a certificate of service sent via the United States Postal Service on that same date.      \nSubsequently, on July 15, 2025, my office sent a letter-notice informing the Claimant of \nthe Respondents’ motion to  dismiss,  and  a  deadline of  twenty (20) days  for  filing  a  written \n\nLawson – H301388 \n \n4 \n \nresponse.  This letter was sent via both first-class and certified mail.  The letter-notice sent by way \nof first-class mail has not been returned to the Commission.   \nPer an Amended Notice of Hearing\n2\n generated on September 17, 2025, my office notified \nthe  parties  that  a  hearing  had  been rescheduled on the Respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Said \ndismissal hearing was set for October 14, 2025, in El Dorado, Arkansas.  This hearing notice was \nsent via first-class and certified mail. \nThe United States Postal Service returned the hearing notice sent via certified mail to the \nCommission on October 16, 2025, because it went unclaimed.  However, the notice sent via first-\nclass  mail has  not  been returned  to  the Commission.   Based  on  the foregoing, the  evidence \npreponderates that the Claimant received appropriate notice of the dismissal hearing.     \nStill, there has been no response from the Claimant. \nA hearing was in fact conducted on the Respondents’ motion as scheduled.  The Claimant \ndid not appear for the hearing.  However, the Respondents appeared through their attorney.  The \nRespondents’ counsel argued, among other things, that the Claimant has failed to timely prosecute \nher claim for workers’ compensation benefits.   Counsel  further  noted  that  the  Claimant  did  not \nappear at the hearing to object to the dismissal or request a hearing.  As such, Counsel moved that \nthis claim be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702, and Commission \nRule 099.13 (now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110 (d)). \n             Adjudication  \nTherefore, the statutory provision and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Rule applicable \nin the Respondents’ request for dismissal of this claim are outlined below:  \nSpecifically, Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702(a)(4) provides:  \n \n \n2\n An  Amended  Notice  of  Hearing  was  sent  rescheduling  the  motion  to  dismiss  hearing  because  the \npreviously scheduled dismissal hearing had to be rescheduled.     \n\nLawson – H301388 \n \n5 \n \nIf within six (6) months after the filing of a claim for compensation, no bona fide \nrequest for a hearing has been made with respect to the claim, the claim may, upon \nmotion and after hearing, be dismissed without prejudice to the refiling of the claim \nwithin the limitation periods specified in subdivisions (a)(1)-(3) of this section. \nAlso, Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702(d) provides:  \nIf within six (6) months after the filing of a claim for additional compensation, no \nbona fide request for a hearing has been made with respect to the claim, the claim \nmay, upon motion and after hearing, if necessary, be dismissed without prejudice \nto the refiling of the claim within the limitation period specified in subsection (b) \nof this section. \n \nCommission Rule 099.13 (now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110 (d), reads as follows: \nThe Commission may, in its discretion, postpone or recess hearings at the instance \nof either party or on its own motion.  No case set for hearing shall be postponed \nexcept by approval of the Commission or Administrative Law Judge. \n \nIn the event neither party appears at the initial hearing, the case may be dismissed \nby  the  Commission  or  Administrative  Law  Judge,  and  such  dismissal  order  will \nbecome  final  unless  an  appeal  is  timely  taken  therefrom  or  a  proper  motion  to \nreopen  is  filed with  the  Commission  within  thirty  (30)  days  from  receipt  of  the \norder. \n \nUpon  meritorious  application  to  the  Commission  from  either  party  in  an  action \npending before the Commission, requesting that the claim be dismissed for want of \nprosecution, the Commission may, upon reasonable notice to all parties, enter an \norder dismissing the claim for want of prosecution.  (Effective March 1, 1982) \n \n            A review of the evidence shows that the Claimant has had ample time to pursue her claim \nfor workers’ compensation benefits, but she has failed to do so.  Specifically, the Claimant has not \nrequested a hearing or otherwise made  any  effort to prosecute her claim since the filing of  her \nrequest for a hearing in September 2023, which was done than six (6) months ago; and nor has she \nresisted the motion to dismiss her claim despite having received notice of the dismissal hearing.  \nMoreover, the Claimant has failed to respond to the Notices of this Commission.   \n Thus, the  evidence  preponderates  that  the  Claimant  has clearly failed  to  prosecute  this \nclaim for workers’ compensation benefits.  For these reasons, I am convinced that the Claimant \nhas abandoned her claim.   \n\nLawson – H301388 \n \n6 \n \nTherefore,  after  consideration  of  the  evidence before  me,  I  find that  the Respondents’ \nmotion to dismiss for a lack of prosecution to be well taken.   \nI thus find that pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.§11-9-702, and Commission Rule 099.13 (now \ncodified  at  11  C.A.R. § 25-110  (d)),  this  claim  for  workers’ compensation benefits is  hereby \nrespectfully dismissed without prejudice to the refiling of it within the limitation period specified \nunder the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act (referred to herein as the “Act”). \n                           FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nBased  on 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 Claimant’s former attorney filed a request for a hearing in September \n2023,  which  was withdrawn.    Since  this  time, the  Claimant  has  not \nrequested  a  hearing  or shown that she  wishes  to  pursue  this  claim  for \nworkers’ compensation benefits.  \n \n3. The Respondents filed with the Commission a motion for dismissal of this \nclaim, for which a hearing was held. \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 evidence  preponderates  that  the Respondents’ motion to dismiss this \nclaim for lack of prosecution is well founded, and should be hereby granted, \nwithout  prejudice, per Ark.  Code  Ann. §11-9-702,  and  Commission  Rule \n099.13(now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110 (d)) to the refiling of it within \nthe limitation period specified by law.  \n             \n                                               ORDER \n \nBased  upon  the  foregoing findings, I  have  no  alternative  but  to  dismiss  this  claim  for \nworkers’ compensation benefits.  This dismissal is made pursuant to the provisions of Ark. Code  \n\nLawson – H301388 \n \n7 \n \nAnn. §11- 9-702, and Commission Rule 099.13 (now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110 (d)), without \nprejudice to the refiling of this claim within the limitation period specified under the Act. \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n                                                                                              \n          \n                                                                                     _____________________________ \n  CHANDRA L. BLACK  \n                                                     Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H301388 FAITH LAWSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT LM INSURANCE CORPORATION, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED DECEMBER 5, 2025 Hearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in El Dorado, Union Coun...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:33:26.547Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H301388-2025-12-05","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/LAWSON_FAITH_H301388_20251205.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}