{"id":"alj-H405519-2025-05-19","awcc_number":"H405519","decision_date":"2025-05-19","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Judy Browley","employer_name":"Jefferson County","title":"BROWLEY VS. JEFFERSON COUNTY AWCC# H405519 May 19, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:9","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BROWLEY_JUDY_H405519_20250519.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"BROWLEY_JUDY_H405519_20250519.pdf","text_length":11925,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n  \n                                                         CLAIM NO.: H405519 \n \nJUDY B. BROWLEY,   \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                CLAIMANT                                                    \n \nJEFFERSON COUNTY,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT                                                                                                  \n \nAAC RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                       RESPONDENT    \n        \n                                                OPINION FILED MAY 19, 2025    \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Pine Bluff, Jefferson County, \nArkansas. \n  \nThe Claimant, pro se, did not participate in the hearing.\n1\n \n \nRespondents represented by the Honorable Melissa Wood, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n                                                     STATEMENT OF THE CASE      \n \nThis  matter  comes  before  the  Commission pursuant  to  a motion  to dismiss filed by the \nRespondents.  On May 8, 2025, a hearing was conducted on the Respondents’ motion to dismiss \nin Pine Bluff, Arkansas.  Hence, presently the sole issue for determination is whether this claim \nshould  be  dismissed due to the Claimant’s failure  to timely prosecute it  under the  statutory \nprovisions  of Ark. Code Ann.  §11-9-702 (a)  (4) (Repl.  2012), and/or Arkansas  Workers’ \nCompensation Commission Rule 099.13. \n The record consists of the hearing transcript and documentary evidence from May 8, 2025.   \nIn that regard, Commission’s Exhibit 1 includes two (2) actual pages, which was marked \n \n1\n Although the Claimant appeared before we went on the record for the hearing, but she declined to stay \nfor the hearing.  Basically, the Claimant indicated that she has returned to work for the employer in this matter \nand does not wish to pursue her claim.    \n\nBrowley – H405519 \n \n \n2 \n \naccordingly, and Respondents’ Exhibit 1 consisting of ten (10) numbered pages was also thus \nmarked accordingly.   \n Reasonable notice of the dismissal hearing was had on all the parties in that manner  \nset by applicable law.   \nNo testimony was taken at the dismissal hearing.  \n                        Background \nThe record reflects the following procedural history: \nThe Claimant filed a Form AR-C, with the Commission on August 26, 2024, alleging that \nshe sustained an accidental injury, on May 8, 2023, while working for the respondent-employer.  \nHowever, the date of injury listed in the Commission’s file on May 5.  This is the exact same date \nof injury listed by the respondent-employer on the Form AR-2.  Nevertheless, per the Form AR-\nC, the Claimant allegedly sustained an injury in the course and scope of her employment, while \nloading boxes onto a dolly, when she accidentally incurred a fall.  The Claimant alleged that she \nsustained injuries to her left hand, which included her middle and ring fingers.  Consequently, the \nClaimant requested only initial benefits, in the form of medical expenses.    \nOn August 28, 2024, the Respondents filed a Form AR-2 with the Commission accepting \nthis  as  a “medical  only  claim.”  Specifically, the claims adjuster wrote, “Medical Only, AR-C \nfiled.”    \nSince the filing of the Form AR-C, the Claimant has failed to prosecute or otherwise pursue \nher claim for initial workers’ compensation benefits.  Specifically, more than six (6) months passed \nafter the filing of her claim for initial compensation.  However, the Claimant has made no bona \nfide request for a hearing with respect to her claim.   \n\nBrowley – H405519 \n \n \n3 \n \nAs  a  result,  on March  3,  2025,  the  Respondents  filed  with  the Commission a  Motion to \nDismiss for Failure to Prosecute, along with a certificate of service to the Claimant.  Per this proof \nof service, the Respondents served a copy of the foregoing pleading on the Claimant by depositing \na copy of it in the United States Mail to same address listed with the Commission.   \nSubsequently, on March 6, 2025, the Commission wrote a letter notifying the Claimant of \nthe Respondents’ motion to dismiss her claim  and asked that  she  file a written response  to  the \nmotion within twenty (20) days.  Said letter was sent to the Claimant by both first-class mail and \ncertified mail to the address listed by the Claimant with the Commission.  Said letter was sent via \nthe United States Postal Service.  \nPer tracking information received from the Postal Service, the letter notice sent by certified \nmail to the Claimant was delivered to her when she picked it up at a Postal Facility on March 21, \n2025.    The  signature  of  the  recipient for  delivery  of said letter bears the Claimant’s signature.  \nRegarding the letter sent by first-class mail, it has not been returned to the Commission.   \nThe Commission sent a Notice of Hearing to the parties on March 27, 2025, scheduling the \ndismissal hearing for May 8, 2025.   Said hearing notice was sent to the Claimant by both first-\nclass and certified mail to the same address as before.   \nPer tracking information received from by the Commission from the United States Postal \nService, the hearing notice sent via certified mail was delivered to the Claimant on April 2, 2025.  \nAgain, the Claimant took delivery of the Hearing Notice when she picked it up from the Altheimer \nPostal  Facility.  The  signature  of  the  recipient shows  that  the  Claimant  signed  for  the  notice  of \nhearing.  However, the notice sent by first-class mail has not been returned to the Commission.   \n \n\nBrowley – H405519 \n \n \n4 \n \nThus, the evidence preponderates that reasonable notice of the dismissal hearing was made \nupon the Claimant.  \nStill, there was no response from the Claimant.    \nTherefore, the dismissal hearing was conducted on the Respondents’ motion to dismiss this \nclaim as formerly scheduled.  Despite having received notice of the dismissal hearing, there was \nno response from the Claimant.  However, the Claimant appeared at the hearing venue prior to the \nstart of the dismissal hearing, but she waived her appearance and participation in the hearing upon \nlearning the nature of the hearing.  Nevertheless, the Respondents appeared at the hearing through \ntheir lawyer.  The Respondents’ attorney argued, among other things, for dismissal of this claim \nbecause the Claimant has made no bona fide request for a hearing or taken any action to prosecute \nor otherwise resolve her claim since the filing of the Form AR-C in August 2024.  Hence, counsel \nfurther argued that more than six (6) months have passed since the Claimant filed the Form AR-C \nwith the Commission, without making any type of bona fide request for a hearing.  Specifically, \nthe attorney for Respondents moved to dismiss this claim under the authority of Ark. Code Ann. \n§11-9-702, and/or Commission Rule 099.13, without prejudice.   \n            Adjudication  \nThe statutory provision and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Rule applicable to the \nRespondents’ motion for dismissal of this claim for initial workers’ compensation benefits are \noutlined below:  \nSpecifically, Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702(a)(4) provides:  \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 the limitation periods specified in subdivisions (a)(1)-(3) of this section. \n \n\nBrowley – H405519 \n \n \n5 \n \nCommission Rule 099.13 provides:  \n \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 \nSince the filing of the Form AR-C, in August 2024, the Claimant has made no bona fide \nrequest for a hearing with respect to her claim.  Hence, the evidence demonstrations that more than \nsix  (6)  months  have  passed  since  the  filing  of  the  Claimant’s  claim  for  initial  workers’ \ncompensation benefits.   Hence, the Claimant has failed to timely prosecute her claim.  Moreover, \nthe Claimant has indicated that she does not object to her claim being dismissed.   \nConsidering all the foregoing, I am compelled to conclude that the Claimant has abandoned \nher claim for workers’ compensation benefits.  Based on all the aforementioned reasons, I find that \nthe Respondents’ motion  to dismiss  this  claim is  warranted.  Therefore,  pursuant  to Ark.  Code \nAnn. §11-9-702 (a) (4) (Repl. 2012) and Commission Rule 099.13, this claim for initial benefits \nis hereby respectfully dismissed for want of prosecution.  Said dismissal is without prejudice, to \nthe refiling of this claim within the limitation period specified by law.   \n                            FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nBased  on the record before  me,  I hereby  make  the  following  findings  of  fact  and \nconclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n\nBrowley – H405519 \n \n \n6 \n \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this \nclaim. \n \n2. On August 26, 2024, the Claimant filed a Form AR-C with the Commission \nin  this  matter  asserting  her entitlement to initial workers’ compensation \nbenefits due to an accidental injury to her left hand/fingers occurring in May \n2023. \n \n3. More than six (6) months have passed since the filing of the Form AR-C, \nand she  has  made no  bona  fide  request for  a  hearing with  respect  to  her \nclaim.    \n \n4. The Respondents filed a motion to dismiss with the Commission asking that \nthe within claim be dismissed due to a lack of prosecution. \n \n5.         Reasonable notice of the motion to dismiss and hearing was had on all the \nparties.  \n \n6.        The evidence preponderates that the Respondents’ motion to dismiss this  \n            claim for want of prosecution is warranted.   \n \n7.        That the Respondents’ motion to dismiss is granted pursuant to Ark. Code  \n           Ann. §11-9-702 (a)(4) (Repl. 2012) and Commission Rule 099.13, without    \nprejudice, to the refiling of the claim within the limitation periods specified      \nby law.   \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 Ark. Code Ann §11-9-702 and Commission \nRule 099.13 to the refiling of it within the specified limitation period.   \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n                                    \n                                                                                              \n______________________________ \n                                                                                                CHANDRA L. BLACK  \n                                                               Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H405519 JUDY B. BROWLEY, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT JEFFERSON COUNTY, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT AAC RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 19, 2025 Hearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Pine Bluff, Jefferson County,...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:40:52.539Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H405519-2025-05-19","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BROWLEY_JUDY_H405519_20250519.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}