{"id":"alj-H304411-2025-06-19","awcc_number":"H304411","decision_date":"2025-06-19","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Shannon Dodson","employer_name":"New Age Distrubuting, Inc","title":"DODSON VS. NEW AGE DISTRUBUTING, INC. AWCC# H304411 June 19, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:6","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["wrist"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/DODSON_SHANNON_H304411_20250619.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"DODSON_SHANNON_H304411_20250619.pdf","text_length":11262,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nAWCC CLAIM NO.: H304411 \n \n \nSHANNON DODSON, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                 CLAIMANT \n \nNEW AGE DISTRUBUTING, INC.,   \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT     \n \nRETAILERS CASUALTY INSURANCE, \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                       RESPONDENT    \n                                                                                                                                \n          \nOPINION FILED JUNE 19, 2025   \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge CHANDRA L. BLACK, in Little Rock, Pulaski \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant, pro se, failed to appear at the hearing. \n \nRespondents represented  by the  Honorable Zachary  F.  Ryburn, Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n                                                  STATEMENT OF THE CASE      \n \n A hearing was held on June 18, 2025, in the present case to determine whether this claim \nfor additional Arkansas workers’ compensation should be dismissed for failure to prosecute under \nthe   provisions   of   Ark. Code   Ann. §11-9-702 (Repl.   2012), and/or Arkansas  Workers’ \nCompensation Commission Rule 099.13.  The dismissal hearing in this claim was held pursuant \nto  the  ruling  in Dillard v. Benton County Sheriff’s Office,  87  Ark.  App.  379,  192  S.W.  3d  287 \n(2004). \nAppropriate notice of this hearing was had on all parties to their last known address, in the \nmanner prescribed by law.   \nNo testimony was taken. \n\nDODSON - H304411 \n \n2 \n \nThe record consists of June 18, 2025, hearing transcript and the documents held therein.  \nCommission’s Exhibit consists of fourteen (14) pages of  pleadings,  letters,  forms,  and  other \ntracking documents which were provided to the Commission by the United States Postal Service \nconcerning  delivery  information  for  notices  sent  to  the Claimant; and Respondents’ Exhibit 1 \nconsists of five (5) pages. \n                                                             Procedural History \n On August  1,  2023, the Claimant’s  attorney filed  with  the  Commission  a  claim  for \nArkansas workers’ compensation benefits via a Form AR-C.  Per  this  document,  the  Claimant \nalleged that she sustained injuries during the course and in the scope of her employment with the \nrespondent-employer.  According  to  this document,  the  Claimant asserted  that  she  sustained an \ninjury to her wrist in a work-related accident on July 3, 2023.  The Claimant’s attorney requested \nonly additional benefits.  In fact, her attorney checked all the boxes for every possible additional \nworkers’ compensation benefit allowed under the law. \n  On July 13, 2023, the respondent-insurance-carrier filed with the Commission a Form AR-\n2 stating their position on this claim for workers’ compensation benefits.   Per  this  form,  the \nRespondents accepted the claim as compensable.  Specifically, the carrier stated in a letter to the \nCommission dated August 3, 2023, that they were paying all reasonable, necessary, related, and \nauthorized medical and indemnity benefits.  \n The  Claimant  requested  a  change  of  physician from  Sean  Michael  Morell,  M.D.  to  Mar \nTait, DO.  On August 24, 2023, the Commission’s Medical Cost Containment Director entered a \nchange of physician order granting the Claimant’s request for a change of physician.       \n\nDODSON - H304411 \n \n3 \n \n Subsequently,  there  was no activity  whatsoever  on  the  claim.   However,  on February  9, \n2024, the Claimant’s attorney sent an email to the Commission,  which  was  accompanied  by  a \nMotion to Withdraw from representing the Claimant in this matter. \n  On February 26, 2024, the Full Commission entered an order granting the motion for the \nClaimant’s attorney to withdraw as counsel of record.  \n Since this time, the Claimant has not tried to pursue or otherwise resolve her claim, nor has \nshe made a bona fide request for a hearing since the filing of the Form AR-C in August 2023.    \n Therefore,  on April  22,  2025, the  Respondents filed a Respondents’ Motion  to Dismiss, \nwith the Commission, along with a certificate of service confirming that they had emailed a copy \nof the motion to the Claimant.   \nOn April  24,  2025, my  office  sent  a  letter/notice  to  the Claimant  informing  her of the \nRespondents’ motion, and a deadline of twenty (20) days, for filing a written response.  Said letter \nwas sent to the Claimant via both first-class and certified mail.  Per tracking information received \nfrom the United States Postal Service, on April 26, 2025, they delivered this item to the Claimant’s \nresidence and left it with an individual.  However, the signature of the recipient signing for delivery \nof this item  is  illegible.   Yet,  the letter  sent via first-class  mail  has  not  been  returned  to  the \nCommission.   \n   Subsequently, there was no response whatsoever from the Claimant.   \n Therefore, my office sent a Hearing Notice to the parties on May 16, 2025, letting them \nknow that this matter had been set for a hearing on the Respondents’ motion for dismissal of this \nclaim due to a lack of prosecution.  Said dismissal hearing was scheduled for Wednesday, June 18, \n2025, at the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission. \n\nDODSON - H304411 \n \n4 \n \nThis notice of hearing was mailed to the Claimant by both first-class and certified mail.  \nPer tracking information received from the United States Postal Service, on May 21, 2025, they \ndelivered this item to the Claimant’s residence and left it with an individual.  Yet  again the \nsignature  of  the  recipient signing  for  delivery  of this  item  is  illegible.   Thus  far,  the notice  of \nhearing sent  via  first-class  mail  has  not  been  returned  to  the  Commission. Under  these \ncircumstances, I find that the Claimant received proper notice of the hearing. \n Still, there was no response whatsoever from the Claimant.   \nNevertheless,  the  hearing  was  held  as  scheduled.  The Claimant did  not appear at the \nhearing.  However, the Respondents’ counsel appeared at the hearing and argued that the Claimant \nhas  failed  to  prosecute  her claim for workers’ compensation benefits.   More  specifically, the \nRespondents’ attorney noted that the Claimant has not taken any action to advance her claim since \nthe filing of the Form AR-C in August 2023, which was clearly done more than six (6) months \nago.   \nTherefore, the Respondents’ attorney moved that this claim be dismissed pursuant to Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-702, and/or Commission Rule 099.13 without prejudice.  \n                                                       Adjudication \nThe statutory provision and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Rule applicable in the  \nRespondents’ request for dismissal of this claim are outlined below:  \nSpecifically, 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 \n \n\nDODSON - H304411 \n \n5 \n \n \n \nAdditionally, Commission Rule 099.13 reads:  \n \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 thorough review of the evidence before me shows that the Claimant has had ample time \nto pursue her claim for additional benefits, but she has failed to do so.  Specifically, the Claimant \nhas  not  requested  a  hearing  or  otherwise made  any  effort to  prosecute  her claim for workers’ \ncompensation benefits since the filing of the Form AR-C in August 2023, which was done over \nmore than six (6) months ago.  Of significance, the Claimant has failed to oppose the motion, and \nshe has not responded to the notices of this Commission.   \nHere, the evidence preponderates that the Claimant has failed to timely prosecute this claim \nfor additional workers’ compensation benefits.  Under these circumstances, I am convinced that \nthe Claimant has abandoned her claim for workers’ compensation benefits.  Accordingly, based \non the preponderance of the evidence presented before me, I find that the Respondents’ motion to \ndismiss for a lack of prosecution to be well taken.  I thus find that pursuant to the provisions of \nArk. Code Ann.§11-9-702 (Repl. 2012), and Commission Rule 099.13, this claim for additional \nworkers’ compensation benefits is hereby dismissed, without prejudice, to the refiling within the \nlimitation period specified under the law. \n\nDODSON - H304411 \n \n6 \n \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 \n2. The Respondents filed with the Commission a motion for dismissal of this \nclaim, for which a hearing was held. \n \n3. Appropriate Notice of the dismissal hearing was had on all parties to their \nlast known address, in the manner prescribed by law.    \n \n            4. The Respondents’ motion to dismiss this claim for want of prosecution is \nhereby granted, without prejudice, pursuant to the provisions of Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-702, and Commission Rule 099.13, to the refiling of the claim \nwithin the specified limitation period.  \n \n                                                           ORDER \n \nBased  upon  the  foregoing findings, I  have  no  alternative  but  to  dismiss  this  claim  for \nadditional Arkansas workers’ compensation benefits.  This dismissal is pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. \n§11-9-702, and Commission Rule 099.13, without prejudice, to the refiling of this claim within \nthe limitation period specified under the Act. \n           IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n                              _______________________________ \n               Chandra L. Black \n               Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWCC CLAIM NO.: H304411 SHANNON DODSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT NEW AGE DISTRUBUTING, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT RETAILERS CASUALTY INSURANCE, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JUNE 19, 2025 Hearing held before Administrative Law Judge CHANDRA L. BLACK, in Little Rock, P...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:39:47.284Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H304411-2025-06-19","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/DODSON_SHANNON_H304411_20250619.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}