{"id":"alj-H401326-2025-05-28","awcc_number":"H401326","decision_date":"2025-05-28","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Amy Buck","employer_name":"Presbyterian Village, Inc","title":"BUCK VS. PRESBYTERIAN VILLAGE, INC. AWCC# H401326 May 28, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:3","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BUCK_AMY_H401326_20250528.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"BUCK_AMY_H401326_20250528.pdf","text_length":9145,"full_text":"1 \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H401326 \n \n \nAMY BUCK,  \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nPRESBYTERIAN VILLAGE, INC.,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n                                                                                     \nATA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION SELF-INSURED TRUST/ \nRISK MG’T RESOURCES, INC. \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                    RESPONDENT                    \n                                                                                                                     \n \n \nOPINION FILED MAY 28, 2025,  \nGRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE \n \n \nHearing conducted on Wednesday, May 28, 2025, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission (the Commission), Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mike Pickens, in Little Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nThe claimant, Ms. Amy Buck, pro se, of Russellville, Pope County, Arkansas, failed and/or \nrefused to appear at the hearing.  \n \nThe respondents were represented by the Honorable Jarrod Parrish, Worley, Wood & Parrish, \nLittle Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.  \n \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n          A hearing was conducted on Wednesday, May 28, 2025, to determine whether this claim \nshould be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(a)(4) (2025 Lexis \nReplacement) and Commission Rule 099.13 (2025 Lexis Replacement). \n        The  claimant herein initially  was  represented  by  counsel,  Ms.  Laura  Beth  York, of the \nRainwater,  Holt  &  Sexton  law  firm. By  unanimous  Full  Commission  order  issued  and  filed  on \nDecember 16, 2024, the Commission granted the claimant’s attorney’s motion to withdraw as the \nclaimant’s attorney of record. (Respondents’ Exhibit 1 at 7). \n\nAmy Buck, AWCC No. H401326 \n2 \n \n       Thereafter,  on February 7,  2025, the respondents filed with  the  Commission a  motion  to \ndismiss this claim without prejudice (MTD) for lack of prosecution. (RX1 at 9-10). Pursuant to \nthe applicable law the Commission provided the claimant due and legal notice of the respondents’ \nMTD, to which the claimant filed an objection via a letter dated and filed with the Commission on \nMarch  6,  2025. In her March 6, 2025, letter, the claimant objected to the respondents’ MTD; \nadvised she intended to continue to pursue her claim; and that she would “...be obtaining another \nattorney to handle this claim...”; and “Once I find another attorney, I would like to then request a \nhearing when I have legal representation.” (RX1 at 12) (Emphasis added). \n       By email to the ALJ and the claimant dated March 7, 2025, the respondents’ attorney advised \nthat,”...unless claimant is requesting a hearing on a specific benefit she claims is due her, I’m \ncontinuing to request a hearing on the dismissal request I have filed.” (RX1 at 13-15). The ALJ’s \noffice so advised the claimant who responded with another copy of her March 6, 2025, letter. The \nALJ then emailed the claimant clarifying and confirming that in her March 6, 2025, letter she was \nin fact intending to request a hearing on her request for additional medical care. By email to the \nALJ dated March 12, 2025, the claimant requested additional time to find an attorney. The ALJ \nresponded to the claimant’s email via an email dated March 14, 2025, on which he cc:’d the \nrespondents’ attorney and provided the respondents’ attorney the email thread which contained the \nclaimant’s March 12, 2025, as the claimant had failed to cc: the respondents’ attorney on the March \n12,  2025,  email  to  the  ALJ. The ALJ’s office then for a  second  time  sent  out  the  prehearing \nquestionnaire and related documents to the claimant and respondents’ attorney. (RX1 at 16-18).  \n       In a subsequent email to both the claimant and the respondents’ attorney dated March 14, \n2025, the ALJ wrote:  \n                      Ms. Buck, I will hold your claim file in my office for an additional \n                     30 days... – or until Wednesday, April 23, 2023 [sic, corrected to 2025] –  \n\nAmy Buck, AWCC No. H401326 \n3 \n \n                     for either your attorney or you to file your response to the prehearing  \n                     questionnaire documents with the Commission. If my office does not  \n                     receive your prehearing response by that date, we will set a hearing  \n                     on the respondents’ motion to dismiss, which I have held in abeyance  \n                     at this time. \n \n(RX1 at 16) (Bracketed material and emphasis added). The ALJ also reminded the claimant it was \n“very important – and  is,  in  fact,  a  legal  requirement”  that she  and/or  her  attorney  cc:  the \nrespondents’ attorney on any and all documents she files with the Commission as well as any and \nall written communication in any form including but not limited to emails that relate to substantive \nissues in her claim, and that the respondents were held to the same requirement. (RX1 at 16).  \n       When neither the claimant or any attorney acting on her behalf failed and/or refused to file her \nresponse  to  the  prehearing  questionnaire  by  the  stated  due  date  of  April  23,  2025,  on  April  24, \n2025, the ALJ’s office set this matter for a hearing on the respondents’ MTD filed February 7, \n2025. (RX1 at 19). The claimant was once again provided due and legal notice of the respondents’ \nMTD,  as  well  as  the date,  time,  and  place  of  the  subject  hearing.  This  time  the  claimant  failed \nand/or refused to file any response, via email or otherwise, or to respond to the MTD or hearing \nnotice in any way. (RX1 at 1-19).  \n       The record herein consists of the hearing transcript and any and all exhibits contained therein \nand attached thereto. (Hearing Transcript; RX1 at 1 - 19).  \nDISCUSSION \n        Consistent with Ark. Code Ann.§ 11-9-702(a)(4) (2025 Lexis Replacement), as well as our \ncourt of appeals’ ruling in Dillard vs. Benton County Sheriff’s Office,  87  Ark.  App.  379,  192 \nS.W.3d  287  (Ark.  App.  2004),  the  Commission  scheduled  and  conducted  a  hearing  on the \nclaimant’s voluntary MTD. Rather than recite a detailed analysis of the record, suffice it to say the \npreponderance of the evidence introduced at the hearing and contained in the record conclusively \n\nAmy Buck, AWCC No. H401326 \n4 \n \nreveals that although the ALJ provided her additional time on more than one (1) occasion to hire \nan attorney  and/or to actively prosecute her  claim by at the very least filing her response to the \nprehearing  questionnaire, the  claimant has failed  and/or  refused  to  do  so. Although on  two  (2) \nseparate occasions the ALJ granted the claimant’s requests allowing her additional time to find an \nattorney and/or to respond to the prehearing questionnaire, she failed and/or refused to do so. In \naddition, the claimant failed and/or refused to appear at the hearing and make any facts or argument \nas to why the respondents’ MTD should be denied at this time.  \n        Therefore, after a thorough consideration of the issues at bar, the applicable law as applied to \nthe facts of this claim, and other relevant matters of record including the representations of credible \ncounsel, I hereby make the following: \n \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. \n \n2. After  having received due  and legal  notice  of the respondents’ MTD without prejudice \nfiled with the Commission on February 7, 2025,  as well as notice of the subject hearing \ndate, time, and place; and after the ALJ granted her additional time to retain an attorney to \nrepresent  her  or  to  file  her  response  to  the  prehearing  questionnaire, the  claimant failed \nand/or refused to retain an attorney, or to respond to the respondents’ MTD, or to take any \nsteps to actively prosecute her claim.  \n \n3. Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence compels the decision the respondents’ MTD \nwithout  prejudice  filed February 7,  2025,  should  be  and  hereby  is  GRANTED;  and this \nclaim  hereby  is  dismissed  without  prejudice  to  its  refiling  pursuant  to  the  deadlines \nprescribed by Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-9-702(a) and (b) Rule 099.13. \n \n        If they have not already done so, the respondents hereby are ordered to pay the court \nreporter’s invoice within twenty (20) days of their receipt thereof. \n        IT IS SO ORDERED. \n                                                                                             ____________________________                                                                                      \n                                                                                 Mike Pickens \n    MP/mp                                                                             Administrative Law Judge \n\nAmy Buck, AWCC No. H401326 \n5","preview":"1 BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H401326 AMY BUCK, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT PRESBYTERIAN VILLAGE, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ATA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION SELF-INSURED TRUST/ RISK MG’T RESOURCES, INC. CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 28, 2025, GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:41:22.102Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H401326-2025-05-28","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BUCK_AMY_H401326_20250528.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}