{"id":"alj-H402239-2024-10-09","awcc_number":"H402239","decision_date":"2024-10-09","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Heather Robbins","employer_name":"Ouachita Enrichment Center, Inc","title":"ROBBINS VS. OUACHITA ENRICHMENT CENTER, INC. AWCC# H402239 October 9, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:9","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/ROBBINS_HEATHER_H402239_10092024.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"ROBBINS_HEATHER_H402239_10092024.pdf","text_length":8973,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n  \n                                                        CLAIM NO.: H402239 \nHEATHER RENEE ROBBINS,   \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                CLAIMANT                                                    \n \nOUACHITA ENRICHMENT CENTER, INC.,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                           RESPONDENT  \n \nACCIDENT FUND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,              \nINSURANCE CARRIER                                                                                       RESPONDENT \n        \nOPINION FILED OCTOBER 9, 2024    \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in El Dorado, Union County, \nArkansas. \n  \nThe Claimant, pro se, did not appear at the hearing. \n \nRespondents represented by the Honorable Karen H. McKinney, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n                                                     STATEMENT OF THE CASE      \n \nThis matter comes before the Commission pursuant to the Motion to Dismiss filed by the \nRespondents.  A hearing on the motion was conducted on August 7, 2024, in El Dorado, Arkansas.  \nThus,  the  sole  issue  for determination  is whether  this  claim should  be  dismissed due  to  the \nClaimant’s failure to prosecute it under Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702 (Repl. 2012), and/or Arkansas \nWorkers’ Compensation Commission Rule 099.13. \n The record consists of the August 7, 2024, hearing transcript and exhibits.  In that regard,  \nCommission’s Exhibit No. 1 includes two pages, which has been marked; accordingly, and   \nRespondents’ Exhibit 1 consisting of thirty-one numbered pages was marked as thus so.   \n No testimony was taken at the hearing. \nReasonable notice of the dismissal hearing was had on all the parties in the manner set by \napplicable law.   \n\nROBBINS – H402239 \n \n2 \n \n                            Background \nThe record reflects the following procedural history: \nThe Respondents initially accepted this as a medical-only claim.  This claim involves a slip \nand  fall  injury  that  the Claimant sustained  on the  premises  of  the  respondent-employer on \nNovember 21, 2023.  The Claimant’s work-related incident occurred reportedly while the Claimant \nwas on the premises during her lunch break.  While the Claimant was continuing to undergo further \nmedical  treatment, an investigation by  the  Respondents  revealed that  the Claimant’s injury \noccurred at a time when the Claimant was not performing employment services.  As a result of the \nfindings of this investigation, the Respondents controverted the claim.   \nOnce the claim was controverted, the Claimant sent a written request to the Commission \non April 11, 2024, asking for a hearing on the issue of additional benefits.  Although the Claimant \ndid  not  file  a  Form  AR-C, this letter constitutes the filing of a claim for additional workers’ \ncompensation benefits under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act.       \nTherefore,  the prehearing  process began, and  the  claim  was  assigned  to  my  office for \nadjudication.    On  May  10, 2024, prehearing  questionnaires  and  notices  were forwarded to  the \nparties.  The Claimant’s responsive filing was due on May 30, 2024.  When the Claimant failed to \nfile a timely response, this claim was returned to the Commission’s general files.  However, on \nJune 4, 2024, the Claimant sent in a prehearing questionnaire response to the Commission.  At that \npoint, the Respondents prepared their prehearing questionnaire response and also filed a Motion \nto Compel Discovery.  \nThe Respondents were prompted to take this course of action because they had previously \npropounded discovery to the Claimant, and she provided them with only partial answers.  Per the \nRespondents,  the  Claimant  did  not  provide  any  records  supporting  her  claim  and  she  did  not \n\nROBBINS – H402239 \n \n3 \n \nprovide  any  of  the  releases they  had asked her  for.    After the  Claimant  failed  to  respond  to  the \nmotion, a Motion to Compel was entered.  \nStill, the Claimant failed to pursue her claim for additional workers’ compensation benefits.  \nAs a result, the Respondents essentially moved that the claim be dismissed.  \nOn June 20, 2024, my office wrote to the Claimant and requested a response to the motion \nwithin twenty days.  The letter was sent by first-class and certified mail to the address listed by the \nClaimant with the Commission.  The first-class letter was not returned to the Commission.   \nHowever, on July 24, 2024, the Claimant sent an email to the Commission which simply \nread, “Please dismiss my case.”  \nOn that same date, a dismissal hearing notice was sent to the parties scheduling the hearing \nfor August 7, 2027, at 8:30 a.m. at the Union County Courthouse in El Dorado.   Said notice was \nsent  to  Claimant  by  first-class  and  certified  mail  at  the  same  address  as  before.   The  first-class \nletter was not returned.  Thus, the evidence preponderates that the Claimant received proper notice \nof the dismissal hearing.  \nA hearing was in fact conducted on the Respondents’ motion to dismiss as scheduled.  The \nClaimant chose not to appear at the hearing.   \nThe Respondents appeared through counsel at the hearing and argued for dismissal of this \ncause of action under the authority of Commission Rule 099.13  \nSpecifically, the  Respondents’ attorney requested that  the claim be  dismissed without \nprejudice under Commission Rule  099.13.  The  Respondents noted that the Claimant  has \nconsented in the dismissal of her claim via her correspondence to my office on July 24, 2024. \n \n \n\nROBBINS – H402239 \n \n4 \n \n            Discussion  \n             In that regard, 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, Respondents under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(3) (Repl. 2012) \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.  \nBarre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 S.W.3d 415; Smith v. Magnet Cove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. \n491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947).  \n  With  respect  to the  evidence  recounted  above,  (1)  the  parties  were  provided  reasonable \nnotice of the Motion to Dismiss and the hearing on it; and (2) the Claimant has failed to pursue her \nclaim because she has taken no further action in pursuit of it (including not appearing at the August \n7, 2024 dismissal hearing to argue against her claim being dismissed) since the filing of her claim \nfor  additional  benefits  on  April  11,  2024.    Moreover, the Claimant has  stated  that  she does not \nwish to pursue her claim and has agreed for it to be dismissed.   \nAccordingly,  based  on my  review  of  the documentary  evidence,  and  all  other  matters \nproperly before the Commission, I find that the Respondents’ motion to dismiss this claim is called \nfor under the provisions of Rule 099.13 of this Commission.  Said dismissal is without prejudice, \nto the refiling of this claim within the limitation period specified by law.   \nBecause of the abovementioned finding, it is unnecessary to address the application of Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-702.  \n \n\nROBBINS – H402239 \n \n5 \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 \n \n2.         Reasonable notice of the Motion to Dismiss and hearing was had on all the \nparties.   \n \n3.         The evidence preponderates that the Respondents’ motion for dismissal for   \n            a lack of prosecution is well founded.   \n \n4.        That the Respondents’ motion to dismiss is hereby granted pursuant to Rule \n099.13 without prejudice,  to  the  refiling  of  the  claim  within  the specified \nlimitation period.   \n \n \n     ORDER \n \nIn  accordance  with the  foregoing findings  of fact  and conclusions  of law, this  claim is \nhereby dismissed without prejudice, pursuant  to Rule  099.13 to  the  refiling  of it  within  the \nspecified limitation period.        \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n   \n                                                                     ________________________________ \n                                                                                     CHANDRA L. BLACK  \n                                                    Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H402239 HEATHER RENEE ROBBINS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT OUACHITA ENRICHMENT CENTER, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ACCIDENT FUND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED OCTOBER 9, 2024 Hearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:47:37.193Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H402239-2024-10-09","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/ROBBINS_HEATHER_H402239_10092024.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}