{"id":"alj-H407406-2025-05-02","awcc_number":"H407406","decision_date":"2025-05-02","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Rita Strother","employer_name":"Wal-Mart Associates, Inc","title":"STROTHER VS. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. AWCC# H407406 May 02, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:10","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/STROTHER_RITA_H407406_20250502.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"STROTHER_RITA_H407406_20250502.pdf","text_length":10862,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n  \n                                                        CLAIM NO.: H407406 \n \nRITA L. STROTHER,   \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                CLAIMANT                                                    \n \nWAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC.,  \nSELF-INSURED EMPLOYER                                                                               RESPONDENT                                                                                                  \n \n        \n                                              OPINION FILED MAY 2, 2025    \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n  \nThe Claimant, Pro Se, did not appear at the hearing. \n \nRespondents represented by the Honorable Rick Behring, Jr., 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.  A hearing on the motion was conducted on April 22, 2025, in Little Rock, Arkansas.  \nThus, presently the sole issue for determination is whether this claim should be dismissed due to \nthe Claimant’s failure  to prosecute it  under Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-702 (Repl.  2012),  and/or \nArkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Rule 099.13. \n The record consists of the April 22, 2025, hearing transcript and documentary evidence.   \nIn that regard, Commission’s Exhibit 1 includes seven (7) actual pages, which has been marked \naccordingly, and Respondents’ Exhibit 1 consisting of twenty-seven (27) numbered pages was \nmarked as thus so.   \n Reasonable notice of the dismissal hearing was had on all the parties in the manner  \nset by applicable law.   \nNo testimony was taken at the hearing.  \n\nSTROTHER – H407406 \n \n \n2 \n \n                        Background \nThe record reflects the following procedural history: \n On November 13, 2024, the Claimant filed a Form AR-C, with the Commission, alleging \nthat she sustained an accidental injury, on October 23, 2024, while working for the respondent-\nemployer.  According  to  this document, the Claimant allegedly sustained an injury to  her left \nelbow, the form of tennis elbow, as a result of performing her employment duties.  Per this form, \nthe Claimant requested only initial benefits, in the form of temporary total disability compensation \nand medical expenses.    \nThe Respondents initially filed a Form AR-2 on November 15, 2024, with the Commission \naccepting  this  as  a “medical  only  claim.” However,  on  November  25,  the  respondent-employer \nfiled  an  amended  Form  AR-2  controverting  the  claim  in  its  entirety.  Per  this document,  the \nRespondents took the following position: “Claim is being controverted.  Respondents dispute that \nthe  associate  sustained  a  compensable  injury  arising  out  of  and in the  course  and  scope  of \nemployment.”      \nSince the filing of the Form AR-C, the Claimant has failed to prosecute or otherwise pursue \nher claim for workers’ compensation benefits.  Specifically, after filing her  claim  for  initial \ncompensation, the Claimant has made no bona fide request for a hearing with respect to her claim.   \nAs a  result,  on  February  18,  2025,  the  Respondents  filed  with  the Commission a \nRespondents’ Motion to  Compel  or  Dismiss  and  Incorporated  Brief  in  Support, along  with  a \ncertificate of service to the Claimant.  Per this verification, the Respondents served a copy of the \nforegoing pleading on the Claimant by depositing a copy of it in the United States Mail to different \naddress listed with the Commission.   \n\nSTROTHER – H407406 \n \n \n3 \n \nSubsequently,  on February  25,  2025, I wrote to  the  Claimant  and requested  a written \nresponse to the motion within twenty (20) days.  Said letter was sent to the Claimant by both first-\nclass mail and certified mail to the address listed by the Claimant with the Commission.  Said letter \nwas sent via the United States Postal Service.  \nPer  tracking  information  received  from  the  Postal  Service, on  February  27,  2025, the \ndismissal hearing notice sent by certified mail to the Claimant was delivered to her home address \nas listed above and left with an individual.  However, the signature of the recipient of said letter is \nillegible.  Regarding the letter sent by first-class mail, it has not been returned to the Commission.   \nMy  office  sent  a Notice of  Hearing to  the  parties on March  18, 2025, scheduling  the \ndismissal hearing for April 22, 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 the United States Postal Service, the hearing notice \nsent via certified mail was delivered to the Claimant’s home on March 20, 2025, and left with an \nindividual.  Again, the signature of the recipient taking delivery of this item is illegible.  Yet, the \nnotice sent  by first-class mail has not been returned to  the  Commission.  Thus,  the evidence \npreponderates that reasonable notice of the dismissal hearing was made upon 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, the Claimant \ndid not appear at the hearing.  However, the Respondents appeared at the hearing through their \nlawyer.  The Respondent’s counsel argued, among other things, for dismissal of this claim because \nthe  Claimant  has made  no bona fide  request for  a hearing or taken  any action to prosecute or \notherwise resolve her claim since the filing of the Form AR-C in November 2024.  Specifically, \n\nSTROTHER – H407406 \n \n \n4 \n \nthe attorney for Respondents moved for dismissal of this claim under the authority of Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-702, and/or Commission Rule 099.13.   \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 \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 \nThe evidence shows that the Claimant has failed to respond to the written notices of this \nCommission, and she did not appear at the hearing to object to the motion.  Moreover, since the \nfiling of the Form AR-C, which was done in November 2024, the Claimant has not made a bona \nfide request for a hearing with respect to her claim.   \n\nSTROTHER – H407406 \n \n \n5 \n \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 Commission \nRule 099.13, this claim for initial benefits is hereby respectfully dismissed for want of prosecution.  \nSaid dismissal  is without  prejudice, to  the  refiling of  this  claim within  the limitation  period \nspecified by law.   \nConsideration of the claim being dismissed under Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702 (a) (4) (Repl. \n2012) has been rendered moot.  \n                            FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nBased on the record, I hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law \nin accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this \nclaim. \n \n2. On  November  13,  2024,  the  Claimant  filed  a Form  AR-C with  the \nCommission in  this  matter  asserting  her entitlement to initial workers’ \ncompensation benefits due to an accidental injury to her elbow occurring on \nOctober 23, 2024. \n \n3. Since the filing of the Form AR-C, the Claimant has not made a bona fide \nrequest for a hearing.    \n \n4. The  Respondents  filed  a motion  to  dismiss  with  the  Commission  on \nFebruary 18, 2025, asking that the within claim be dismissed due to a lack \nof 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 Commission      \n\nSTROTHER – H407406 \n \n \n6 \n \nRule 099.13, without prejudice,  to  the  refiling  of  the  claim  within  the \nlimitation periods specified by law.   \n \n8.       A determination with respect to the issue for dismissal of this claim pursuant  \n          to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702 (a)(4) (Repl. 2012) has been rendered moot.   \n \nORDER \nIn accordance with the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, this claim is \nhereby dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to Commission Rule 099.13 to the refiling of it \nwithin the specified limitation period.  Consideration of this claim being dismiss under Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-702 is moot.            \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n   \n                                  \n                                                                                     ________________________________ \n                                                                                     CHANDRA L. BLACK  \n                                                    Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H407406 RITA L. STROTHER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 2, 2025 Hearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. The Claimant, Pro Se,...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:40:17.028Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H407406-2025-05-02","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/STROTHER_RITA_H407406_20250502.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}