{"id":"alj-H303330-2025-04-17","awcc_number":"H303330","decision_date":"2025-04-17","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Alma Hicks","employer_name":"Hamburg Jr. High School","title":"HICKS VS. HAMBURG JR. HIGH SCHOOL AWCC# H303330 April 17, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:8","denied:4"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HICKS_ALMA_H303330_20250417.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"HICKS_ALMA_H303330_20250417.pdf","text_length":11377,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n  \n                                                      AWCC CLAIM NO.: H303330 \n \nALMA M. HICKS,   \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                CLAIMANT                                                    \n \nHAMBURG JR. HIGH SCHOOL,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                           RESPONDENT  \n                                                                                                       \nAR SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOC. WCT,              \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA                                                                               RESPONDENT \n      \n        \n                                              OPINION FILED APRIL 17, 2025    \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in El Dorado, Union County, \nArkansas. \n  \nThe Claimant, Pro Se, appeared at the hearing. \n \nThe Respondents represented by the Honorable Melissa Wood, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n                                                     STATEMENT OF THE CASE      \n \nThis matter comes before the Commission pursuant to a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to \nProsecute filed by the Respondents.  A hearing was conducted on the motion to dismiss on April \n2, 2025, in El Dorado, Arkansas.  Thus, the sole issue for determination was whether this claim \nshould be dismissed due to the Claimant’s failure to prosecute it under Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702 \n(Repl. 2012), and/or Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Rule 099.13. \n The record consists of the April 2, 2025, hearing transcript and exhibits.  In that regard, \nCommission’s Exhibit 1 includes eight (8) actual pages, which has been marked accordingly; \nand Respondents’ Exhibit 1 consisting of sixteen (16) numbered pages was marked as thus so.   \n The Claimant, Ms. Alma Hicks, and her son, D’Juan Hicks, testified during the hearing.  \n\nHICKS – H303330 \n \n \n2 \n \nReasonable  notice  of  the  dismissal  hearing  was had all  the  parties  in  the  manner  set  by \napplicable law.   \n                            Background \nThis  is  the  second  dismissal  hearing  to be  held in  this  claim.   The record  reflects  the \nfollowing procedural history: \n The Claimant’s former attorney filed a Form  AR-C  with  the  Commission  on  May  23, \n2023, alleging that the Claimant sustained an accidental injury on March 14, 2023, while working \nfor Hamburg Jr. High School, the respondent-employer in this matter.  According to this form, the \nClaimant allegedly sustained injuries to her face and head while moving a desk.  The Claimant’s \nformer attorney requested only additional benefits.    \nOn  May  24,  2023,  the  Respondents  initially  filed  a  Form  AR-2  with  the  Commission \naccepting this as a “medical only claim.”  Subsequently, the Respondents filed an amended Form \nAR-2 on September 18, 2023, accepting the claim as being compensable and paid some medical \nbenefits and temporary total disability compensation to and on behalf of the Claimant.   \nLater,  the Claimant’s attorney filed  a  motion to  withdraw  from  representing  her in  this \nmatter.  On June 25, 2024, the Full Commission entered an order granting the motion. \nSubsequently, the Claimant did not pursue her claim for additional workers’ compensation \nbenefits.  Most notably, the Claimant did not make a bona fide request for a hearing.   \nTherefore,  on  July  8,  2024,  the  Respondents  filed  with  the Commission a  Motion  to \nDismiss for Failure to Prosecute, along with a certificate of service to the Claimant.   \nThe first dismissal hearing was held on September 4, 2024.   The Claimant appeared at the  \ndismissal hearing.  The Respondents  appeared at  the  hearing through their attorney.    Counsel \nargued for dismissal of this case because the Claimant had not sought any type of bona fide hearing \n\nHICKS – H303330 \n \n \n3 \n \nsince  the  filing  of  the  Form  AR-C,  which  was  done in  May  2023.   At  that  time,  the Claimant \nrequested that  her  claim  not  be  dismissed.  Specifically, the Claimant stated that  she  had \nexperienced personal challenges and been unable to prosecute her claim.  However, the Claimant \nindicated that she wished to pursue her claim and would do so.  \nTherefore, in an opinion filed October 22, 2024, I denied the Respondents’ motion based \non the Claimant’s promise to pursue her claim.  Specifically, I made the following findings: \nAfter considering the evidence before me, I find that the Respondents’ motion to \ndismiss this claim due to a lack of prosecution to be well taken.  However, I find that the \ndismissal of this claim should be denied  at this time because the Claimant has indicated \nthat she intends to pursue additional benefits in this matter.  Accordingly, the Respondents’ \nmotion to dismiss this claim is hereby respectfully denied. \n Of note, during the hearing, the Claimant was cautioned that failure to prosecute \nher claim could result in it being dismissed.  \n \nAs  a  result,  on  October  22, 2024, I  returned  the  case to the Commission’s general files.  \nHowever,  since  this  time, the  Claimant  has  taken  no  action  whatsoever  to request  a  hearing  or \notherwise taken any steps to pursue her claim.  \nTherefore, on  January  16,  2025,  the  Respondents  filed  a second Motion  to  Dismiss  for \nFailure to Prosecute.  Specifically, counsel moved for dismissal of this claim under the authority \nof Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702 (Repl. 2012), and/or Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission \nRule 099.13.  Pursuant to this motion, a Hearing Notice was sent to the parties on February 25, \n2025, scheduling the dismissal hearing for April 2, 2025, at the Union County Courthouse, in El \nDorado.    \nThe second dismissal hearing was held as scheduled.  The Claimant appeared at the hearing \nand was accompanied by her son, D’Juan Hicks.  Counsel for the Respondents argued for dismissal \nof  this claim because  the  Claimant  has been  non-responsive  to  the Medical  Cost  Containment \nDivision at the Commission regarding her  request for a change of physician, and she has made no \n\nHICKS – H303330 \n \n \n4 \n \nrequest  for  a  hearing.   However,  the  Claimant again  objected  to her  claim being  dismissed.  \nSpecifically, the Claimant indicated that she has experienced some life-changing challenges, which \nhave  prevented  her  from  being  able  to pursue her  claim.  In  this  regard,  unfortunately,  the \nClaimant’s brother and her mother  passed away  on the  first  of  this year.  Also,  the  Claimant \ntestified that in recent months, she has had to find other housing and move.  However, the Claimant \nagain testified that she intends to pursue her claim for additional benefits, which includes a request \nfor a change of physician.   \n            Discussion  \nIn  the  case  at  bar,  the  statutory provisions, and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Rule \napplicable in the Respondents’ motion to dismiss this claim for a lack of prosecution are outlined \nbelow:  \nIn that regard, 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 \n            AWCC 099.13 reads:  \nUpon meritorious application to the Commission from either party in an action pending \nbefore the Commission, requesting that the claim be dismissed for want of prosecution, \nthe Commission may, upon reasonable notice to all parties, enter an order dismissing the \nclaim for want of prosecution.  \n \nAs the moving party, under Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-705(a)(3) (Repl. 2012), the Respondents \nmust prove their entitlement to the relief requested—dismissal of this matter—by a preponderance \nof  the  evidence.    This  standard  means the evidence having  greater  weight  or  convincing  force.  \n\nHICKS – H303330 \n \n \n5 \n \nBarre  v.  Hoffman,  2009  Ark.  373,  326  S.W. 3d  415; Smith  v.  Magnet  Cove  Barium  Corp.,  212 \nArk. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947).  \n  With respect to the evidence described above, (1) the parties were provided with reasonable \nnotice of the second Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute and the hearing on it; and (2) the \nClaimant has made no bona fide request for a hearing since the filing of the Form AR-C in May \n2023,  and  the first  dismissal  hearing.   However,  the  Claimant  appeared at  the second dismissal \nhearing and asked that her claim not be dismissed because she intends to take immediate steps to \npursue her claim, starting with a request for a change of physician. \n While I sympathized immensely with the Claimant’s circumstances during the hearing, I \nnoted the  importance of  the  need  for  her  to act in  furtherance  of her  claim as  soon  as  possible.  \nBoth the Claimant and her son indicated that they understood the need for her to pursue this claim \ngiven  the  fact  that  this  is  the  second  time a dismissal hearing has  been  held  on  this  claim.    Of \nsignificance,  the  Claimant testified that after  the  hearing, she  would  contact  the  Medical  Cost \nContainment Division and provide them with the name of the doctor she wishes to be evaluated \nby for her compensable injury.  \n Therefore,  based on the  evidence before  me,  I  find the Respondents’ second  motion  to \ndismiss this claim due to a lack of prosecution to be well taken.  Nevertheless, I am persuaded that \nthe dismissal of this claim should be denied at this time because the Claimant has indicated that \nshe  intends  to  pursue  additional  benefits, in  the  form of a request  for  a change  of  physician.  \nAccordingly, the Respondents’ most  recent motion  to dismiss  this  claim is  hereby  respectfully \ndenied. \n However, I  admonished  the  Claimant  that  if  she does  not pursue  her  claim in  a  timely \nfashion, she runs the risk of it being dismissed.   \n\nHICKS – H303330 \n \n \n6 \n \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. The Respondents filed a second motion to dismiss, for which a hearing was \nheld.  The Claimant has indicated that she will pursue her claim in the near \nfuture.   \n \n3.         The Respondents’ second motion to dismiss is hereby respectfully denied.   \n              \n \n        ORDER \n \nIn accordance with the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, \nthe Respondents’ most  recent Motion  to  Dismiss  for  Failure  to  Prosecute  is  hereby  respectfully \ndenied at this time. \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n                                                                       \n_______________________________ \n                                                                                    CHANDRA L. BLACK  \n                                                   Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWCC CLAIM NO.: H303330 ALMA M. HICKS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT HAMBURG JR. HIGH SCHOOL, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT AR SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOC. WCT, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 17, 2025 Hearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in El Dorad...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:41:47.037Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H303330-2025-04-17","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HICKS_ALMA_H303330_20250417.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}