{"id":"alj-H404490-2025-02-18","awcc_number":"H404490","decision_date":"2025-02-18","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Angel Wallace","employer_name":"Wendy’s LLC","title":"WALLACE VS. WENDY’S LLC AWCC# H404490 February 18, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:6","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["neck","shoulder","wrist"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WALLACE_ANGEL_H404490_20250218.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"WALLACE_ANGEL_H404490_20250218.pdf","text_length":9887,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO.: H404490 \n \n \nANGEL MARIE WALLACE,  \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                CLAIMANT \n \nWENDY’S LLC,   \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT     \n \nTRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE \nCOMPANY OF AMERICA,   \n(TPA)                                                                                                                      RESPONDENT                                                 \n          \nOPINION FILED FEBRUARY 18, 2025     \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nThe Claimant  represented  by  the  Honorable  Mark  Alan  Peoples,  Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock \nArkansas.  Mr. Peoples waived his appearance at the hearing. \n \nRespondents represented  by the  Honorable Zachary  F.  Ryburn, Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n                                                  STATEMENT OF THE CASE      \n \n A hearing was held on February 4, 2025, in the present matter pursuant to Dillard v. Benton \nCounty Sheriff’s Office,  87  Ark.  App.  379,  192  S.W.  3d  287  (2004),  to  determine  whether  the \nabove-referenced matter should be dismissed for failure to prosecute under the provisions of Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-702, and/or Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Rule 099.13.  \nAppropriate Notice of this hearing was had on all parties to their last known address, in the \nmanner prescribed by law.   \nNo testimony was taken. \nThe record consists of the transcript of February 4, 2025, hearing and the documents held \ntherein.  The Commission’s Exhibit consists of eight (8) pages, including correspondence from the \n\nWALLACE-H404490 \n \n2 \n \nClaimant’s attorney,  which  was marked  accordingly, and Respondents’ Exhibit 1 consisting of \nfour (4) numbered pages of pleadings, correspondence, and other documents related to this claim. \n                                                             Procedural History \n On July 15, 2024, the Claimant’s attorney filed with the Commission a claim for Arkansas \nworkers’ compensation benefits via a Form AR-C.  Per this document, the Claimant alleged that \nhe sustained injuries during the course and in the scope of his employment with the respondent-\nemployer, on June 22, 2024.  Per this document, the Claimant alleged that she injured her neck, \nboth shoulders, and both wrists in a work-related accident.  The Claimant requested only initial \nbenefits.  In  fact, her attorney checked  off all the boxes for  every  conceivable initial workers’ \ncompensation benefit allowed under the law.    \n  The respondent-insurance-carrier filed a Form AR-2 with the Commission on August 27, \n2024.  Per this form, the carrier accepted the Claimant’s injuries in the form of “bilateral shoulder \nsprains and bilateral wrist sprains.”   \n Since  this  time,  the  Claimant  has  not tried to  pursue  or  otherwise  resolve  her claim.  \nMoreover, nor has the Claimant made a bona fide request for a hearing since the filing of the Form \nAR-C.  \n Therefore, on January 28, 2025, the Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to \nProsecute,  with  the  Commission,  along  with a certificate  of service  to  the Claimant’s attorney.  \nSpecifically, the Respondents  mailed  a  copy  of  said  motion  to  the Claimant’s attorney via  the \nUnited States Postal Service.  \nMy  office sent  a letter to  the Claimant  and  her  attorney on January  30,  2025, informing \nthem of the Respondents’ motion, and a deadline of twenty (20) days to file a written response.   \nSaid letter was mailed to the Claimant’s attorney and her by both first-class and certified mail.  \n\nWALLACE-H404490 \n \n3 \n \n   The Claimant’s attorney sent the following e-mail to my office on January 30, 2025, “We \nwill not oppose the motion, provided dismissal is w/o prejudice.  We will ask to be excused from \nany hearing on the motion.”  As a result, the Claimant’s attorney was excused from attending the \ndismissal hearing.     \n Pursuant to a Hearing Notice dated January 31, 2025, my office notified the parties that the \nmatter  had  been  set  for  a  hearing  on the Respondents’ motion  to dismiss.    Said  hearing  was \nscheduled  for February  4,  2025, at the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission in Little \nRock, Arkansas. \n The hearing was held as scheduled.  The Claimant and her attorney did not appear for the \nhearing.  Hence, as previously noted above, the Claimant’ counsel was excused from attending the \nhearing.   Nevertheless, the Respondents’ counsel appeared  at  the  hearing  and argued that  the \nClaimant has failed to prosecute her claim for workers’ compensation benefits.  More specifically, \nthe Respondents’ counsel noted that the Claimant has not taken any action to advance her claim \nsince the filing of the Form AR-C, which was done more than six (6) months ago.  Counsel further \nnoted that the Claimant’s attorney has indicated that he does not object to the claim being dismissed \nwithout prejudice.  Therefore, the Respondents’ attorney asked that this claim be dismissed without \nprejudice pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702, and/or Commission Rule 099.13.  \n      Adjudication \nThe statutory provisions and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Rule applicable in the  \nRespondents’ request for dismissal of this claim are outlined below:  \nSpecifically, Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702(a)(4):  \nIf within six (6) months after the filing of a claim for compensation, no bona fide \nrequest for a hearing has been made with respect to the claim, the claim may, upon \nmotion and after hearing, be dismissed without prejudice to the refiling of the claim \nwithin limitation periods specified in subdivisions (a)(1)-(3) of this section. \n\nWALLACE-H404490 \n \n4 \n \nAdditionally, Commission Rule 099.13 reads:  \nThe Commission may, in its discretion, postpone or recess hearings at the instance \nof either party or on its own motion.  No case set for hearing shall be postponed \nexcept by approval of the Commission or Administrative Law Judge. \n \nIn the event neither party appears at the initial hearing, the case may be dismissed \nby  the  Commission  or  Administrative  Law  Judge,  and  such  dismissal  order  will \nbecome  final  unless  an  appeal  is  timely  taken  therefrom  or  a  proper  motion  to \nreopen  is  filed with  the  Commission  within  thirty  (30)  days  from  receipt  of  the \norder. \n \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.  (Effective March 1, 1982) \n \n            A review of the evidence shows that the Claimant has had ample time to pursue her claim \nfor workers’ compensation benefits, but she has failed to do so.  Specifically, the Claimant has not \nrequested a hearing or otherwise made any effort to prosecute her claim for workers’ compensation \nbenefits since the filing of Form AR-C, over more than six (6) months ago; and nor has she resisted \nthe motion for dismissal of her claim.  In fact, the Claimant’s attorney has consented to her claim \nbeing dismissed without prejudice.    \nHence, to summarize, I hereby find that the evidence preponderates that the Claimant has \nfailed  to promptly prosecute this claim for workers’ compensation benefits.  Therefore,  after \nconsideration of the evidence before me, I am compelled to find that the Respondents’ motion to \ndismiss for a lack of prosecution to be well taken.   \nAccordingly, I thus find that pursuant to the provisions of Ark. Code Ann.§11-9-702, and \nCommission  Rule  099.13,  this  claim for workers’ compensation benefits is  hereby  respectfully \ndismissed without prejudice to  the  refiling  within  the limitation  period specified  under  the \nArkansas Workers’ Compensation Act (the “Act”). \n \n\nWALLACE-H404490 \n \n5 \n \n                            FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nOn  the  basis  of  the  record  as  a  whole,  I  hereby  make  the  following  findings  of  fact  and \nconclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this \nclaim.  \n \n2. The Respondents filed with the Commission a motion for dismissal of this \nclaim, for which a hearing was held. \n \n3. The Claimant’s attorney has consented to her claim being dismissed without \nprejudice.  Hence, the evidence preponderates that the Claimant has failed \nto prosecute her claim pursuant to the relevant provisions of Ark. Code Ann. \n§11-9-702, and Commission Rule 099.13. \n \n4. Appropriate Notice of the dismissal hearing was had on all parties to their \nlast known address, in the manner prescribed by law.    \n \n            5. The Respondents’ motion to dismiss this claim for lack of  prosecution  is \nhereby  granted, without  prejudice,  per  Ark.  Code  Ann. §11-9-702,  and \nCommission Rule 099.13, to the refiling of it within the limitation period \nspecified by law.  \n \n                                                           ORDER \n \n Based  upon  the  foregoing findings, I  have  no  alternative  but  to  dismiss  this  claim  for \nworkers’  compensation  benefits. This   dismissal   is per Ark.   Code   Ann.   §11-9-702, and \nCommission  Rule  099.13, without  prejudice to  the  refiling  of  this claim  within the limitation \nperiod specified under the Act. \n          IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n                              _______________________________ \n               Chandra L. Black \n               Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H404490 ANGEL MARIE WALLACE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT WENDY’S LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, (TPA) RESPONDENT OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 18, 2025 Hearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, Little Rock, Pu...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:43:44.101Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H404490-2025-02-18","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WALLACE_ANGEL_H404490_20250218.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}