{"id":"alj-H402043-2025-01-24","awcc_number":"H402043","decision_date":"2025-01-24","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Sharon Jones","employer_name":"Crestpark Wynne LLC","title":"JONES VS. CRESTPARK WYNNE LLC AWCC# H402043 January 24, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:8","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Jones_Sharon_H402043_20250124.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Jones_Sharon_H402043_20250124.pdf","text_length":7887,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H402043 \n \n \nSHARON D. JONES, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nCRESTPARK WYNNE LLC, \n SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nCANNON COCHRAN MGMT. SVCS., INC., \n THIRD-PARTY ADM’R RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED JANUARY 24, 2025 \n \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on January 24, 2025, in \nForrest City, St. Francis County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se, not appearing. \n \nRespondents represented by Ms. Carol Lockard Worley, Worley, Wood & Parrish, \nAttorneys at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This  matter  comes  before  the  Commission  on the Motion  to Dismiss  by \nRespondents.    A  hearing  on  the  motion  was  conducted  on January  24,  2025, in \nForrest  City,  Arkansas.    No  testimony  was  taken  in  the  case.    Claimant,  who \naccording  to  Commission  records  is pro  se,  failed  to  appear  at  the  hearing.  \nAdmitted  into  evidence  were Commission Exhibit  1 (see Ark.  Code  Ann. § 11-9-\n705(a)(1) (Repl. 2012)(Commission must “conduct the hearing . . . in a manner \nwhich  best  ascertains  the  rights  of  the  parties”) and  Respondents’  Exhibit  1, \nforms, pleadings,  and correspondence  related  to  this  claim,  consisting  of 19 and \n26 pages, respectively. \n\nJONES – H402043 \n \n2 \n \n The record shows the following procedural history: \n Per  the  First  Report  of  Injury  or  Illness  filed  on April  2,  2024,  Claimant \npurportedly suffered injuries at work on July 23, 2023, when she slipped and fell.  \nAccording  to  the  Form  AR-2  that  was also filed  on April  2,  2024,  Respondents \naccepted the claim as a medical-only one. \n On March 25, 2024, Claimant filed a Form AR-C.  Therein, she alleged the \nfollowing:  “The cause of injury is due to slip and fall.  My back, legs and tailbone \nhurts [sic] every day.  I also broke my tooth from the fall.”  Claimant did not check \nany box on the form to denote what type(s) of benefit(s) she was seeking. \n The  record  reflects  that  nothing  further  took  place  on  the  claim  until \nOctober 17, 2024.  On that date, Respondents filed the instant motion, asking for \ndismissal  of  the  claim under  AWCC  R.  099.13  and  Ark.  Code  Ann. § 11-9-702 \n(Repl.  2012) because Claimant  had not sought  a  hearing on  her claim in  the \npreceding six months.  My office wrote Claimant on October 22, 2024, asking for a \nresponse  to  the  motion within  20  days.   The  letter  was  sent  by  first  class and \ncertified mail to the Parkin, Arkansas address for Claimant (a Post Office box) that \nwas listed  in  the  file  and on  her Form  AR-C.  On  October  28,  2024,  she \ntelephoned my office and informed my assistant that she wanted a hearing on her \nclaim.    Based  on  this,  I  informed  the  parties  by  email  that same day  that  I  was \ntaking the motion under advisement and would be proceeding to a hearing on the \nmerits  of  the  claim.    Prehearing  questionnaires  were  issued  to  the  parties  on \n\nJONES – H402043 \n \n3 \n \nOctober  28,  2024.    Claimant  was  informed  that  her  Preliminary  Notice  and \nPrehearing  Questionnaire responses were  due  on  November  12 and  17,  2024, \nrespectively.      These   documents   were   not   only   mailed   to   Claimant   at   the \naforementioned address in Parkin, but were emailed to her as well.  When these \ndeadlines  were  missed,  my  office  attempted  without  success  to  contact her by \nemail.  However, because of Claimant’s failure to file her prehearing documents, a \nhearing on the Motion to Dismiss was set for January 10, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. at \nthe St.  Francis County  Courthouse  in Forrest  City.   This  notice  was  sent  to \nClaimant by first-class and certified mail to the same Parkin address.  She signed \nfor the certified mailing on December 4, 2024, and the first-class version was not \nreturned.  But because inclement winter weather necessitated the cancellation of \nthat hearing, on January 6, 2025, it was re-set for January 24, 2025, at the same \ntime  and  location.    Claimant  signed  for  this  certified  letter  on  January  18,  2024; \nand the notice that was sent by first-class mail to her was not returned. \n The  hearing  on  the Motion  to Dismiss  proceeded  as  scheduled.    Again, \nClaimant  failed  to  appear  at  the  hearing.    But  Respondents appeared  through \ncounsel and argued for dismissal under the foregoing authorities. \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After  reviewing  the  record  as  a  whole,  to  include  documents  and  other \nmatters  properly  before  the  Commission,  the  following Findings  of Fact  and \n\nJONES – H402043 \n \n4 \n \nConclusions of Law are hereby made in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction \nover this matter. \n2. The  parties  were  provided  reasonable  notice  of  the Motion  to \nDismiss and of the hearing thereon. \n3. The  evidence  preponderates  that  Claimant  has  failed  to  prosecute \nher claim under AWCC R. 099.13. \n4. The Motion  to Dismiss  is hereby  granted;  this claim is hereby \ndismissed without prejudice under AWCC R. 099.13. \nIII.  DISCUSSION \n AWCC R. 099.13 reads: \nUpon meritorious application to the Commission from either party in \nan action pending before the Commission, requesting that the claim \nbe  dismissed  for  want  of  prosecution,  the  Commission  may,  upon \nreasonable notice to all parties, enter an order dismissing the claim \nfor want of prosecution. \n \nSee  generally  Johnson  v.  Triple  T  Foods,  55  Ark.  App.  83,  85,  929  S.W.2d  730 \n(1996). \n As the moving party, Respondents under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(3) \n(Repl. 2012) must prove their entitlement to the relief requested—dismissal of the \nclaim—by a preponderance of the  evidence.    This  standard  means  the  evidence \nhaving greater weight or convincing force.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 \n\nJONES – H402043 \n \n5 \n \nS.W.3d 415; Smith v. Magnet Cove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 \n(1947). \n As shown by the evidence recounted above, (1) the parties were provided \nreasonable  notice  of  the Motion  to Dismiss  and  of  the  hearing  thereon;  and  (2) \nClaimant has failed to pursue her claim because she has taken no further action \nin  pursuit  of it (including  appearing  at  the January  24,  2025, hearing  to  argue \nagainst its dismissal) since the filing of her Form AR-C on March 25, 2024.  Thus, \nthe evidence preponderates that dismissal is warranted under Rule 13.  Because \nof this finding, the argument made under § 11-9-702 will not be addressed. \n That  leaves  the  question  of  whether  the  dismissal  of  the  claim  should  be \nwith  or  without  prejudice.    The  Commission  possesses  the  authority  to  dismiss \nclaims  with  prejudice.   Loosey  v.  Osmose  Wood  Preserving  Co., 23  Ark.  App. \n137,  744  S.W.2d  402  (1988).    The  Commission  and  the  appellate  courts  have \nexpressed  a  preference  for  dismissals without  prejudice.   See Professional \nAdjustment   Bureau   v.   Strong,   75   Ark.   249,   629   S.W.2d   284   (1982)).  \nRespondents at  the  hearing  asked  for  a  dismissal  with prejudice.   But  based  on \nthe  foregoing,  I find  that  the  dismissal  of  this  claim  should  be  and  hereby  is \nentered without prejudice.\n1\n \n \n \n1\n“A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ allows a new [claim] to be brought on the \nsame cause of action.”  BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 825 (abridged 5\nth\n ed. 1983). \n\nJONES – H402043 \n \n6 \n \nIV.  CONCLUSION \n In  accordance  with  the Findings  of Fact  and Conclusions  of Law  set  forth \nabove, this claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n      ________________________________ \n      O. MILTON FINE II \n      Chief Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H402043 SHARON D. JONES, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CRESTPARK WYNNE LLC, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT CANNON COCHRAN MGMT. SVCS., INC., THIRD-PARTY ADM’R RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JANUARY 24, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on January...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:44:42.921Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H402043-2025-01-24","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Jones_Sharon_H402043_20250124.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}