{"id":"alj-H401379-2024-12-18","awcc_number":"H401379","decision_date":"2024-12-18","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Hope Davis","employer_name":"Ark. Opco Holding LLC","title":"DAVIS VS. ARK. OPCO HOLDING LLC. AWCC# H401379 December 18, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:8","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["hernia"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Davis_Hope_H401379_20241218.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Davis_Hope_H401379_20241218.pdf","text_length":6337,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H401379 \n \nHOPE DAVIS, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nARK. OPCO HOLDING LLC., \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \nGREAT AMERICAN ALLIANCE INS. CO., \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                    RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED DECEMBER 18, 2024 \n \nHearing conducted on Wednesday, December 11,   2024,  before  the  Arkansas  Workers’ \nCompensation Commission (the Commission), Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Steven Porch, in \nLittle Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant,  Ms. Hope  Davis, Pro Se,  of Benton,  Arkansas, did  not appear in  person at  the \nhearing.  \n \nThe Respondents were represented by the Honorable Jason Ryburn, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This matter comes before the Commission for a full hearing. However, when the Claimant \nfailed to show up for the full hearing, Respondents’ counsel made a motion to  convert  the  full \nhearing  into  a  motion  to  dismiss  hearing.  I  granted  that motion.  Respondents  next renewed its \nprevious motion to dismiss, which I held in abeyance, due to Claimant’s objection to the dismissal \nmotion and subsequent request for a hearing. I heard oral argument on the Motion to Dismiss on \nDecember 11, 2024, in Little Rock, Arkansas.   \nThe  Claimant  worked  for  the  Respondent/Employer  as  a registered  nurse.  The  date  for \nClaimant’s  alleged  injury  was  on February 11,   2024.   She   reported   her   injury   to \nRespondent/Employer on  February  28,  2024. Respondents  admitted into  evidence Respondents \n\nDAVIS, AWCC No. H401379 \n \n2 \n \nExhibit 1, Form AR-C, pleadings, and correspondence consisting of 11 pages. Also, admitted into \nevidence  was  blue-backed Form  AR-1,  Form  AR-2, a  copy  of  certified  return  receipt dated \nNovember 15, 2024, hearing letter dated October 30, 2024, and copy of hearing notice/ Prehearing \nOrder filed October 30, 2024, as discussed infra. \nThe record reflects on February 23, 2024, a Form AR-C was filed with the Commission, \npurporting that Claimant received an umbilical hernia when she was lifting a patient. On February \n29, 2024, a Form AR-1 was filed with the Commission purporting to deny compensability due to  \nthe lack of a specific incident. On March 1, 2024, a Form AR-2 was filed by Respondents denying \ncompensability of the injury. The Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 4, 2024, \nalleging  a  lack  of  prosecution.  The  Claimant  faxed  a handwritten objection  to  the Motion that \nincluded a request for a hearing on September 16, 2024, to the Commission. As a result, I held the \nRespondents’ Motion in abeyance, sent  out  pre-hearing  questionnaires,  and  held  a  pre-hearing \nconference on October 30, 2024. During the pre-hearing conference a full hearing date was set for \nDecember 11, 2024, at 10 am., which both parties agreed to. \nThe  Claimant  was also sent notice  of  the full hearing  through certified  and  regular  U.S. \nMail, on October 30, 2024, to her last known address. The certified motion notice was unclaimed \nby the Claimant. However, the hearing notice that was sent regular U.S. Mail did not returned to \nthe Commission. And as mentioned before, the Claimant did not show up to the hearing. \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After reviewing the record as a whole and other matters properly before the Commission, \nI hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012):  \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n\nDAVIS, AWCC No. H401379 \n \n3 \n \n \n2. The  Claimant  and  Respondents  both  had  reasonable  notice  of  the December 11, \n2024, hearing. \n \n3. Respondents have proven by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has \nfailed to prosecute his claim under AWCC Rule 099.13.  \n \n4. The Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \n \n5. This claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice.     \n \n \nIII.  DISCUSSION \n AWCC 099.13 provides: \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. \n \nSee generally Johnson v. Triple T Foods, 55 Ark. App. 83, 85, 929 S.W.2d 730 (1996).   \nConsistent  with a  full  hearing  and AWCC  Rule  099.13, the  Commission  scheduled  and \nconducted a hearing, with reasonable notice, to the Claimant. Though the certified hearing notice \nwas unclaimed, that same notice was also sent to the Claimant’s address of record by regular First-\nClass  U.S.  Mail  on October 30,  2024,  and  did  not  return  to  the  Commission.  The  Claimant  is \nresponsible  for  providing  the  Commission  with  her  current  address.  The  Commission  is \nresponsible for providing reasonable notice of a hearing to the Claimant. Sending a hearing notice \nto the last known address that was provided to it by the Claimant is reasonable. Thus, I find by the \npreponderance of the evidence that reasonable notice was given to the Claimant.  \nAWCC Rule 099.13 allows the Commission, upon meritorious application, to dismiss an \naction pending before it due to a want of prosecution. The Claimant has failed to appear at her own \n\nDAVIS, AWCC No. H401379 \n \n4 \n \nhearing that she requested. The Claimant has abandoned her claim by her failure to appear at her \nown hearing that she had requested. Therefore, I do find by the preponderance of the evidence that \nClaimant  has  failed  to  prosecute  her  claim  by  failing attend  her hearing. Thus, Respondents’ \nMotion to Dismiss should be granted. \nCONCLUSION \n Based  on  the Findings  of Fact  and Conclusions  of Law set forth above, Respondents’ \nMotion to Dismiss is hereby granted, and Claimant’s claim is dismissed without prejudice. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n      _______________________________________ \n      STEVEN PORCH \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H401379 HOPE DAVIS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ARK. OPCO HOLDING LLC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT GREAT AMERICAN ALLIANCE INS. CO., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED DECEMBER 18, 2024 Hearing conducted on Wednesday, December 11, 2024, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensa...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:45:43.854Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H401379-2024-12-18","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Davis_Hope_H401379_20241218.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}