{"id":"alj-H403261-2025-04-18","awcc_number":"H403261","decision_date":"2025-04-18","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Telia Smith","employer_name":"Amazon.Com Services, LLC","title":"SMITH VS. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC AWCC# H403261 April 18, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:5","granted:2"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/SMITH_TELIA_H403261_20250418.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"SMITH_TELIA_H403261_20250418.pdf","text_length":3736,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nAWCC FILE No H403261 \n \nTELIA D. SMITH, EMPLOYEE         CLAIMANT \n \nAMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, EMPLOYER                    RESPONDENT \n \nAMERICAN ZURICH INS. CO./ \nSEDGEWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, CARRIER/TPA        RESPONDENT \n  \n \n \nOPINION FILED 18 APRIL 2025 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (“the Commission”) \nAdministrative Law Judge JayO. Howe on 26 March 2025 in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. \n \nThe pro se claimant failed to appear. \n \nNewkirk & Jones, Mr. David C. Jones, appeared for the respondents. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A hearing on the respondents’ Motion to Dismiss was held on this matter in Pine \nBluff, Arkansas, on 26 March 2025. This case relates to an alleged workplace injury \noccurring on 6 March 2024. The respondents introduced, and I admitted to the record as \nRespondents’ Exhibit No 1, forty pages of forms, correspondence, and filings in support of \ntheir motion. Additionally, I admitted to the record as Commission’s Exhibit No 1 six pages \nof correspondence and related materials. \nThe claimant, though counsel, filed a Form AR-C on 18 May 2024. The claimant’s \ncounsel later sought to withdraw from this matter; and the Full Commission approved that \nrequest by way of an Order dated 22 November 2024. On 23 January 2025, the respondents \nfiled the immediate motion seeking a dismissal of the claim. Their motion cites Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-702(a)(4) & (d) (Repl. 2012) and Commission Rule 099.13 (“Rule 13”) as grounds \nfor a dismissal.  \n\nT. SMITH- H403261 \n2 \n \n Notice of the respondents’ motion was sent to the claimant, consistent with \nCommission practices, via First Class Mail and Certified Mail, on 24 January 2025 to the \naddress provided on the AR-C. After no response or objection was received by my office, a \nnotice of a hearing on that motion was sent in the same fashion on 24 February 2025. When \nmailings are returned to the Commission as not accepted or undeliverable, those mailings \nare appended to the claim’s file. This file contains “unclaimed” returns of the notice letters \nsent via Certified Mail. No other mailings were returned as unaccepted or undeliverable. \nSee Commission’s Exhibit No 1. \nFINDINDGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After reviewing the record as a whole, I hereby make the following findings of fact \nand conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n 1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter. \n2. The parties were provided with reasonable notice of the Motion to Dismiss \nand the hearing on that motion. \n \n3. The evidence preponderates that the claimant has failed to prosecute her \nclaim under Rule 13. \n \n4. The Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted; this claim for additional benefits is \ndismissed without prejudice under Rule 13. \n \nDISCUSSION \nThe respondents appeared on 10 April 2025 and presented their motion. As argued \nby the respondents at the hearing, our Rule 13 provides for a dismissal for failure to \nprosecute an action upon application by either party and reasonable notice. The claimant \ndid not file a response to the motion or appear at the hearing to argue against the dismissal \nof her claim. The last action taken on behalf of the claimant appears to be her counsel’s \nrequest for to withdraw from the matter on 14 November 2024. A dismissal without \n\nT. SMITH- H403261 \n3 \n \nprejudice is, therefore, appropriate. Because of this finding, the arguments made under \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-702 will not be addressed. \nORDER \n The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT \nPREJUDICE. \nSO ORDERED. \n________________________________ \n       JAYO. HOWE \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWCC FILE No H403261 TELIA D. SMITH, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT AMERICAN ZURICH INS. CO./ SEDGEWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED 18 APRIL 2025 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (“the...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:41:53.266Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H403261-2025-04-18","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/SMITH_TELIA_H403261_20250418.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}