{"id":"alj-H404094-2026-05-07","awcc_number":"H404094","decision_date":"2026-05-07","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Luz Pina-Soto","employer_name":"Simmons Prepared Foods Inc","title":"PINA-SOTO VS. SIMMONS PREPARED FOODS INC. AWCC# H404094 May 07, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:3","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["wrist","shoulder","neck"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/PINA-SOTO_LUZ_H404094_20260507.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"PINA-SOTO_LUZ_H404094_20260507.pdf","text_length":5555,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO. H404094 \n \n \nLUZ PINA-SOTO, EMPLOYEE   CLAIMANT \n \nSIMMONS PREPARED FOODS INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nSEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC./INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION/ORDER FILED MAY 7, 2026 \n \n \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF, in Springdale, Washington \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant is represented by EVELYN E. BROOKS, Attorney, Fayetteville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents are represented by R. SCOTT ZUERKER, Attorney, Fort Smith Arkansas \n \nOPINION/ORDER \n \n \n On April 11, 2025, claimant filed Form AR-C, alleging a compensable injury to her right hand \nand wrist on January 12, 2024. This claim was accepted as compensable.  \nOn January 7, 2026, respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-\n9-702(a)(4) and 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d), contending that more than six months had elapsed since the \nfiling of claimant's AR-C without claimant having requested a hearing. A hearing on the motion was \nscheduled for April 24, 2026. Claimant appeared with counsel and opposed the motion. \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(d) provides, in pertinent part: \nIf within six (6) months after the filing of a claim for additional compensation \nno bona fide request for a hearing has been made with respect to the claim, the \nclaim may, upon motion and after hearing, if necessary, be dismissed without \nprejudice  to  the  refiling  of  the  claim  within  the  limitation  period  specified  in \nsubsection (b) of this section.  \n \n\nPina-Soto-H404094 \n \n2 \n \n11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d) provides, in pertinent part: \nUpon meritorious  application  to  the  Commission  from  either  party  in  an \naction pending before the Commission, requesting that the claim be dismissed \nfor want of prosecution, the Commission may, upon reasonable notice to the \nparties, enter an order dismissing the claim for want of prosecution.  \n \nThe purpose of this rule is to permit the claimant to resist dismissal and to show, if she can, \nwhy the application for dismissal is without merit. The rule is designed to ensure that the rights of the \nclaimant are not prejudiced. \nAt the hearing, respondents argued that claimant had not requested a hearing since her AR-C \nwas filed, that Dr. Kelly's October 1, 2025, report did not recommend additional hand treatment, and \nthat claimant was not then seeking any benefits. Claimant responded that the hand claim had not been \nabandoned  but  had  developed  alongside  a  separate  right  shoulder  and  neck  claim  that  shaped  the \ncourse of treatment and evaluation. The record reflects that claimant underwent surgery on her right \nhand  and  wrist  performed  by  Dr.  Benafield  on  April  19,  2024,  and  later  requested  a  change  of \nphysician. Dr. James Kelly assumed her care and evaluated her on October 1, 2025. Claimant's counsel \nargued that Dr. Kelly's evaluation occurred while the shoulder claim was still being contested and that \nDr. Kelly was unaware of the shoulder injury, which counsel contended affected his assessment of \nclaimant's pain complaints and his functional capacity findings. After respondents eventually accepted \nthe shoulder claim, claimant underwent shoulder surgery. Counsel argued that once claimant recovers \nfrom that surgery, a fresh evaluation of the hand may well be warranted. \nClaimant testified that she continued to experience pain and numbness in her right hand, that \nshe wished to pursue additional treatment if those symptoms persisted after shoulder recovery, and \nthat she had no hand appointments currently scheduled. \n\nPina-Soto-H404094 \n \n3 \n \nBoth the statute and the rule are permissive, not mandatory. Section 11-9-702(d) provides that \na  claim  may  be  dismissed  upon  the  requisite  showing  of  inactivity — not  that  it  shall  be.  The \nCommission therefore retains discretion to deny the motion when the circumstances warrant, and this \nis such a case. Claimant appeared at the hearing, opposed the motion, offered testimony and exhibits, \nand  provided  a  coherent  explanation  for  the  absence  of  hearing  activity: The  hand  claim  has  been \nintertwined  with  a  related  shoulder  claim  that  respondents  initially  contested  and  only  recently \naccepted.  The  delay  reflects  the  complexity  of  a  developing  record,  not  abandonment.  Claimant \npursued  a  change  of  physician,  underwent  evaluation  by  Dr.  Kelly,  and  testified  credibly that  she \nintends to seek additional hand treatment if her symptoms persist following shoulder recovery. \nThe statute further provides that any dismissal would be without prejudice to refiling within \nthe limitations period, and respondents acknowledged at the hearing that Dr. Kelly's October 1, 2025, \nvisit  was  a  covered  visit,  so  that  period  has  not  yet  run.  Dismissal  without  prejudice  would  not \npermanently  foreclose  claimant's  ability  to  refile,  but  it  would  impose  an  unnecessary  procedural \nburden on a claimant who has done precisely what the rule contemplates, as she appeared, opposed \nthe motion to dismiss, and demonstrated that her claim is not without merit. Exercising discretion to \ndeny the motion avoids that result and ensures that claimant's rights are not prejudiced. \nRespondents' Motion to Dismiss is denied. \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n      _______________________________________                                                                                    \n      JOSEPH C. SELF \n      ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H404094 LUZ PINA-SOTO, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT SIMMONS PREPARED FOODS INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC./INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION/ORDER FILED MAY 7, 2026 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF, in Spring...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:46.710Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H404094-2026-05-07","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/PINA-SOTO_LUZ_H404094_20260507.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}