{"id":"alj-H405149-2025-01-07","awcc_number":"H405149","decision_date":"2025-01-07","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Cynthia Dean","employer_name":"Five Rivers Medical Center, Inc","title":"DEAN VS. FIVE RIVERS MEDICAL CENTER, INC. AWCC# H405149 January 07, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:10","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Dean_Cynthia_H405149_20250107.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Dean_Cynthia_H405149_20250107.pdf","text_length":6344,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H405149 \n \nCYNTHIA DEAN, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nFIVE RIVERS MEDICAL CENTER, INC., \nSELF-INSURED EMPLOYER                                                                           RESPONDENT  \n \nRISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR                                                                RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED JANUARY 7, 2025 \n \nHearing conducted on Friday, December 27, 2024, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission  (the  Commission),  Administrative  Law  Judge (ALJ) Steven  Porch,  in Jonesboro, \nCraighead County, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant, Ms. Cynthia Dean, Pro Se, of Imboden, Arkansas, did not appear in person at the \nhearing.  \n \nThe Respondents were represented by the Honorable S. Shane Baker, Jonesboro, Arkansas. \n \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \nThis matter comes before the Commission for a full hearing. However, when the Claimant \nfailed to show up for the full hearing, Respondents’ counsel made a motion to  convert  the  full \nhearing  into  a  motion  to  dismiss  hearing.  I  granted  the  motion.  Respondents next  argued  for \ndismissal of the claim. Respondents admitted Respondents Exhibit 1, a written Motion to Dismiss \nwith exhibits, consisting of 4 pages. Also, admitted into evidence was blue-backed Form AR-C, \nForm  AR-1,  Form  AR-2,  copy  of  hearing  notice/  Prehearing  Order  filed  October  29,  2024, and \ncertified return receipt dated November 1, 2024, as discussed infra. \nThe Claimant worked for Respondent/Employer as a cook and allegedly injured herself on \nJuly 12, 2024. The record reflects on August 12, 2024, a Form AR-C was filed with the  \n \n\nDEAN, AWCC No. H405149 \n \n2 \n \nCommission,  purporting  that  Claimant became  lightheaded  and  sick  to  her  stomach  when  she \nopened  the  convection  oven  and  smelled  the  fumes.  She  did  not  pass  out  due  to  the  fumes. On \nAugust 13, 2024, a Form AR-1 was filed with the Commission purporting that this incident was \nreported to Respondent/Employer on the same day as the incident and that the Claimant went to \nthe emergency department to be seen. On August 13, 2024, a letter and Form AR-2 was filed by \nRespondents denying compensability of the alleged injury.  \nA prehearing conference took place on October 29, 2024, establishing the issues in the case \nand  a  date  for  the  matter  to  be  heard,  December  27,  2024.  A  prehearing  order  was  filed  on the \nsame day as the prehearing conference and was sent to Claimant’s address of record, certified mail, \nas official notice of the full hearing. The Claimant received the notice on November 1, 2024.  \nThe Claimant sent an email to opposing counsel and the Commission requesting that her \nclaim be dropped because she had a sick witness. In an email sent to both parties on December 25, \n2024, I asked the Claimant if she is requesting a continuance due to her sick witness, if so, I will \nconsider her motion. I also informed the Claimant if she wanted to dismiss her claim, I will be at \nthe courthouse December 27, 2024, and at that time if the Respondents made a motion to dismiss \nthen  I  will  entertain  it,  especially if she wasn’t present for the full hearing. In  an  email  dated \nDecember 26, 2024, Claimant stated, “I want to just drop my case and put this behind me...”. In \npreparation for the full hearing next day, the Respondents filed a motion to dismiss and attached \nClaimant’s emails as an exhibit. The Claimant did not appear for the full hearing on December 27, \n2024, as a result, the Respondents made a motion to dismiss. I have heard Respondents argument \non the motion, accepted evidence, and taken the matter under advisement.  \n \n \n\nDEAN, AWCC No. H405149 \n \n3 \n \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After reviewing the record as a whole and other matters properly before the Commission, \nI hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012):  \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The  Claimant  and  Respondents  both  had  reasonable  notice  of  the December 27, \n2024, hearing. \n \n3. Respondents have proven by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has \nfailed to prosecute her claim under AWCC Rule 099.13.  \n \n4. The Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \n \n5. This claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice.     \n \n \nIII.  DISCUSSION \n AWCC 099.13 provides: \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. \n \nSee generally Johnson v. Triple T Foods, 55 Ark. App. 83, 85, 929 S.W.2d 730 (1996).   \nConsistent  with a  full  hearing  and AWCC  Rule  099.13, the  Commission  scheduled  and \nconducted  a  hearing,  with  reasonable  notice, to  the  Claimant. The  certified  hearing  notice  was \nclaimed by Claimant on November 1, 2024. Thus, I find by the preponderance of the evidence that \nreasonable notice was given and received by the Claimant.  \n\nDEAN, AWCC No. H405149 \n \n4 \n \nAWCC Rule 099.13 allows the Commission, upon meritorious application, to dismiss an \naction  pending  before  it  due  to  a  want  of  prosecution. The  Claimant  has  sent  emails  to  the \nCommission and opposing counsel requesting to drop her claim so she can put this matter behind \nher. The Claimant confirmed her desire to drop her claim when she failed to appear at her own full \nhearing that she requested. Thus, it is clear, the Claimant has abandoned her claim. Therefore, I do \nfind by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has failed to prosecute her claim. Thus, \nRespondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \nCONCLUSION \n Based  on  the Findings  of Fact  and Conclusions  of Law set forth above, Respondents’ \nMotion to Dismiss is hereby granted, and Claimant’s claim is dismissed without prejudice. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n      ________________________________ \n      STEVEN PORCH \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H405149 CYNTHIA DEAN, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT FIVE RIVERS MEDICAL CENTER, INC., SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JANUARY 7, 2025 Hearing conducted on Friday, December 27, 2024, before the...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:44:07.309Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H405149-2025-01-07","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Dean_Cynthia_H405149_20250107.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}