{"id":"alj-H406857-2025-06-19","awcc_number":"H406857","decision_date":"2025-06-19","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Alyssa Newell","employer_name":"Qmt LLC, Quapaw Baths, LLC","title":"NEWELL VS. QMT LLC, QUAPAW BATHS, LLC AWCC# H406857 June 19, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:5","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["knee"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/NEWELL_ALYSSA_H406857_20250619.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"NEWELL_ALYSSA_H406857_20250619.pdf","text_length":10324,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO.:H406857 \n \n \nALYSSA NEWELL, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                 CLAIMANT \n \nQMT LLC, QUAPAW BATHS, LLC,   \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT     \n \nMARKEL SERVICE, INC., \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                       RESPONDENT    \n                                                                                                                                \n          \nOPINION FILED JUNE 19, 2025   \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge CHANDRA L. BLACK, in Little Rock, Pulaski \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant, pro se, did not appear at the hearing. \n \nRespondents represented by the Honorable Randy P. Murphy, Attorney at Law, North Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n                                                  STATEMENT OF THE CASE      \n \n A hearing was held on June 18, 2025, in the present case to determine whether this claim \nfor initial Arkansas workers’ compensation should be dismissed for failure to prosecute under the \nprovisions of Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702 (Repl. 2012), and/or Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission Rule 099.13.  The dismissal hearing in this claim was held pursuant to the ruling in \nDillard v. Benton County Sheriff’s Office, 87 Ark. App. 379, 192 S.W. 3d 287 (2004). \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 June 18, 2025, hearing transcript and the documents held therein.  \nCommission’s Exhibit consisting of seven (7) pages of pleadings, letters, forms, and other tracking \n\nNEWELL - H406875 \n \n2 \n \ndocuments provided to the Commission by the United States Postal Service concerning delivery \ninformation  for the notices  sent  to  the Claimant; and Respondents’ Exhibit 1 includes three (3) \npages. \n                                                             Procedural History \n The following procedural history applies to this claim: \n Specifically,  on October  18,  2024, the Claimant’s attorney filed  with  the  Commission  a \nclaim for Arkansas workers’ compensation benefits via a Form AR-C.  Per  this  document,  the \nClaimant alleged that she sustained injuries during the course and in the scope of her employment \nwith  the  respondent-employer.  According  to  this document,  the  Claimant asserted  that  she \nsustained an injury to  her left  knee  on  October  14,  2024.  The Claimant requested only  initial \nadditional benefits, in the form of temporary partial disability, medical expenses, rehabilitation, \nand an attorney’s fee.   \n  On February 6, 2025, the respondent-insurance-carrier filed with the Commission a Form \nAR-2 stating their position on this claim for workers’ compensation benefits.  Per this document, \nthe Respondents controverted the claim in its entirety.  Specifically, the carrier wrote on the Form \nAR-2 “DENYING in full based on Dr. Vargas’ findings of a pre-existing condition.”  \n The Claimant has not requested a hearing on the merits since the filing of the claim via the \nForm AR-C, on October 18, 2024.       \n Because there was no activity whatsoever on the claim, the Respondents filed a Motion to \nDismiss for Failure to Prosecute, along with a certificate of service confirming that they had mailed \na copy of the motion to the Claimant via the United States Postal Service.   \nOn April  24,  2025, my  office  sent  a  letter/notice  to  the Claimant  informing  her of the \nRespondents’ motion, and a deadline of twenty (20) days, for filing a written response.  Said letter \n\nNEWELL - H406875 \n \n3 \n \nwas  mailed  to  the  Claimant via both  first-class  and  certified  mail.  Per tracking information \nreceived  from  the  United  States  Postal  Service, on May  9, 2025, they  were  unable  to find any \ndelivery information in their records for this item, which was sent via certified mail.  Yet, the letter \nsent via first-class mail was returned to the Commission, on May 27, 2025, marked “Unclaimed, \nUnable to Forward.”   \n   However, there was no response whatsoever from the Claimant.   \n Therefore, per a  Hearing  Notice sent  to  the  parties  on May  16,  2025,  the  Commission \nnotified them that this matter had been set for a hearing on Respondents’ motion for dismissal of \nthis claim due to a lack of prosecution.  Said dismissal hearing was scheduled for Wednesday, June \n18, 2025, at the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission. \nSaid notice of hearing was sent to the Claimant by both first-class and certified mail.  Per \ntracking information received from the United States Postal Service, on June 3, 2025, they were \nunable to find any delivery information in their records for the afore item sent via certified mail.  \nYet, the letter sent via first-class mail was returned to the Commission, on June 12, 2025, marked \n“Unclaimed, Unable to Forward.”   \n Still, there has been no response whatsoever from the Claimant.   \nNevertheless,  the  hearing  was  held  as  scheduled.  The Claimant did  not appear at the \nhearing.  However, the Respondents’ counsel appeared at the hearing and argued that the Claimant \nhas failed to prosecute her claim initial for workers’ compensation benefits.  More specifically, the \nRespondents’ attorney noted that the Claimant has not taken any action to advance her claim since \nthe  filing  of  the Form  AR-C, which was  done more  than  six  (6)  months ago.   Therefore, the \nRespondents’ attorney moved that this claim be dismissed pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702, \nand/or Commission Rule 099.13 without prejudice.  \n\nNEWELL - H406875 \n \n4 \n \n                                                        Adjudication \nThe statutory provision 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) 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 \nAdditionally, Commission Rule 099.13 reads:  \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 \n            A thorough review of the evidence before me shows that the Claimant has had ample time \nto pursue her claim for initial benefits, but she has failed to do so.  Specifically, the Claimant has \nnot  requested  a  hearing  or  otherwise made  any  effort to  prosecute  her claim for  workers’ \ncompensation benefits since the filing of the Form AR-C in August 2023, which was done over \nmore than six (6) months ago.  Of significance, the Claimant has failed to oppose the motion, and \nshe has  not  responded to  the  notices  of  this  Commission.   Under  these  circumstances,  I  am \npersuaded that the Claimant has abandoned her claim for workers’ compensation benefits.   \n\nNEWELL - H406875 \n \n5 \n \nHence,  the  evidence  preponderates  that  the  Claimant  has  failed  to timely prosecute  this \nclaim for initial workers’ compensation benefits.  Accordingly, based on the preponderance of the \nevidence presented before  me,  I  find that the Respondents’ motion  to dismiss for  a  lack  of \nprosecution to be well taken.  I thus find that pursuant to the provisions of Ark. Code Ann.§11-9-\n702 (Repl.  2012), and Commission  Rule  099.13,  this claim for initial workers’ compensation \nbenefits is hereby respectfully dismissed, without prejudice, to the refiling within the limitation \nperiod specified under the law. \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 (Repl. 2012): \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. Appropriate Notice of the dismissal hearing was had on all parties to their \nlast known address, in the manner prescribed by law.    \n \n            4. The Respondents’ motion to dismiss this claim for want of prosecution is \nhereby granted, without prejudice, pursuant to the provisions of Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-702, and Commission Rule 099.13, to the refiling of the claim \nwithin the specified limitation period.  \n \n                                                           ORDER \n \nBased upon the foregoing findings, I have no alternative but to dismiss this claim for initial \nArkansas workers’ compensation benefits.  This dismissal is pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n702, and Commission Rule 099.13, without prejudice, to the refiling of this claim within the  \n \n \n\nNEWELL - H406875 \n \n6 \n \nlimitation period 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.:H406857 ALYSSA NEWELL, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT QMT LLC, QUAPAW BATHS, LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT MARKEL SERVICE, INC., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JUNE 19, 2025 Hearing held before Administrative Law Judge CHANDRA L. BLACK, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:39:49.385Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H406857-2025-06-19","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/NEWELL_ALYSSA_H406857_20250619.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}