{"id":"alj-H407792-2025-07-31","awcc_number":"H407792","decision_date":"2025-07-31","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Christina Pruitt","employer_name":"Rite Of Passage, Inc","title":"PRUITT VS. RITE OF PASSAGE, INC. AWCC# H407792 July 31, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:8","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Pruitt_Christina_H407792_20250731.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Pruitt_Christina_H407792_20250731.pdf","text_length":7278,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H407792 \n \n \nCHRISTINA D. PRUITT, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nRITE OF PASSAGE, INC., \n EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nGREAT AMERICAN ALLIANCE INS. CO., \n CARRIER RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED JULY 31, 2025 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge  O.  Milton  Fine  II  on July  31,  2025, in \nLittle Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se, not appearing. \n \nRespondents represented  by  Mr. Jason  M. Ryburn,  Ryburn  Law  Firm, Attorneys \nat Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This  matter  comes  before  the  Commission  on the Motion  to Dismiss  by \nRespondents.  A hearing on the motion was conducted on July 31, 2025, in Little \nRock, Arkansas.  No testimony was taken in the case.  Claimant, who according \nto  Commission  records  is pro  se,  failed  to  appear  at  the  hearing.   Admitted  into \nevidence was Commission Exhibit 1 (see Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(1) (Repl. \n2012)(Commission  must  “conduct  the  hearing  .  .  .  in  a  manner  which  best \nascertains  the  rights  of  the  parties”), forms,  pleadings,  and  correspondence \nrelated to this claim, consisting of 11 pages. \n\nPRUITT – H407792 \n \n2 \n \n The record shows the following procedural history: \n Per  the  First  Report  of  Injury  or  Illness that was  filed on  December  12, \n2024,  Claimant  purportedly  suffered an  injury at  work  on November  19,  2024, \nwhen  a  co-worker  shared  a  piece  of  candy  that  contained  THC  and  Ecstasy.  \nAccording to the Form AR-2 that was filed on December 13, 2024, Respondents \ncontroverted the matter in its entirety. \n On December  2,  2024,  Claimant  filed  a  Form  AR-C.    Therein, Claimant \nrequested the full range of initial benefits in connection with her alleged poisoning \ninjury.  Respondents’ counsel entered his appearance on December 20, 2024. \n The record reflects that nothing further took place on the claim until June 2, \n2025.  On that date, Respondents filed the instant motion, asking for dismissal of \nthe claim because “[n]o efforts to prosecute the claim have been made.”  The file \nwas assigned to me on that same date; and also on June 2, 2025, my office wrote \nClaimant, asking for a response to the motion within 20 days.  The letter was sent \nby first class and certified mail to the Bryant, Arkansas address\n1\n for Claimant that \nwas listed in the file and on her Form AR-C.  The certified letter was returned to \nthe  Commission,  unclaimed, on July  25,  2025; but the  first-class  letter  was  not \nreturned.  Regardless, no response to the motion was forthcoming from her.  On \n \n \n1\nThe very recently    returned    certified    letter    bears    the    notations \n“UNDELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED – UNABLE TO FORWARD” and “NOTIFY \nSENDER OF NEW ADDRESS . . . 1501 CHRIS DR BENTON AR  72015-3224.”  \nWhen  this  came  to  the  attention  of  my  office,  Claimant  was  contacted  by \ntelephone.  She confirmed the new address and that, while she had received the \nhearing notice, but did not plan on attending the hearing. \n\nPRUITT – H407792 \n \n3 \n \nJune  24,  2025,  a  hearing  on  the  Motion  to  Dismiss  was  scheduled  for  July 31, \n2025, at 12:00 p.m. at the Commission in Little Rock.  The Notice of Hearing was \nsent to Claimant by certified and first-class mail to the same address as before.  In \nthis  instance,  the United  States  Postal  Service  could  not  confirm  whether  the \ncertified mailing had been claimed.  But once again, the first-class mailing was not \nreturned. \n The  hearing  on  the Motion  to Dismiss  proceeded  as  scheduled.    Again, \nClaimant  failed  to  appear  at  the  hearing.    But  Respondents appeared  through \ncounsel  and argued  for  dismissal under AWCC  R.  099.13 and  Ark.  Code  Ann. § \n11-9-702(a)(4) (Repl. 2012). \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After  reviewing  the  record  as  a  whole,  to  include  documents  and  other \nmatters  properly  before  the  Commission,  the  following Findings  of Fact  and \nConclusions of Law are hereby made in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction \nover this matter. \n2. The  parties  were  provided  reasonable  notice  of  the Motion  to \nDismiss and of the hearing thereon. \n3. The  evidence  preponderates  that  Claimant  has  failed  to  prosecute \nher claim under AWCC R. 099.13. \n\nPRUITT – H407792 \n \n4 \n \n4. The Motion  to Dismiss  is hereby  granted;  this claim is hereby \ndismissed without prejudice under AWCC R. 099.13. \nIII.  DISCUSSION \n AWCC R. 099.13 reads: \nUpon meritorious application to the Commission from either party in \nan action pending before the Commission, requesting that the claim \nbe  dismissed  for  want  of  prosecution,  the  Commission  may,  upon \nreasonable notice to all parties, enter an order dismissing the claim \nfor want of prosecution. \n \nSee  generally  Johnson  v.  Triple  T  Foods,  55  Ark.  App.  83,  85,  929  S.W.2d  730 \n(1996). \n As the moving party, Respondents under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(3) \n(Repl. 2012) must prove their entitlement to the relief requested—dismissal of the \nclaim—by a preponderance of the  evidence.    This  standard  means  the  evidence \nhaving greater weight or convincing force.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 \nS.W.3d 415; Smith v. Magnet Cove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 \n(1947). \n As shown by the evidence recounted above, (1) the parties were provided \nreasonable  notice  of  the Motion  to Dismiss  and  of  the  hearing  thereon;  and  (2) \nClaimant has failed to pursue her claim because she has taken no further action \nin pursuit of it (including appearing at the July 31, 2025, hearing to argue against \nits dismissal) since the filing of her Form AR-C on December 2, 2024.  Thus, the \n\nPRUITT – H407792 \n \n5 \n \nevidence  preponderates  that  dismissal  is  warranted  under  Rule  13.  Because  of \nthis finding, the applicability of § 11-9-702(a)(4) is moot and will not be addressed. \n That  leaves  the  question  of  whether  the  dismissal  of  the  claim  should  be \nwith  or  without  prejudice.    The  Commission  possesses  the  authority  to  dismiss \nclaims  with  prejudice.   Loosey  v.  Osmose  Wood  Preserving  Co., 23  Ark.  App. \n137,  744  S.W.2d  402  (1988).    The  Commission  and  the  appellate  courts  have \nexpressed  a  preference  for  dismissals without  prejudice.   See Professional \nAdjustment   Bureau   v.   Strong,   75   Ark.   249,   629   S.W.2d   284   (1982)).  \nRespondents at  the  hearing  asked  for  a  dismissal  without prejudice.   Based  on \nthe  foregoing,  I agree  and find  that  the  dismissal  of  this  claim  should  be  and \nhereby is entered without prejudice.\n2\n \nIV.  CONCLUSION \n In  accordance  with  the Findings  of Fact  and Conclusions  of Law  set  forth \nabove, this claim for initial benefits is hereby dismissed without prejudice. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n      ________________________________ \n      O. MILTON FINE II \n      Chief Administrative Law Judge \n \n \n2\n“A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ allows a new [claim] to be brought on the \nsame cause of action.”  BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 825 (abridged 5\nth\n ed. 1983).","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H407792 CHRISTINA D. PRUITT, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT RITE OF PASSAGE, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT GREAT AMERICAN ALLIANCE INS. CO., CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JULY 31, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on July 31, 2025, in Little Ro...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:39:17.854Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H407792-2025-07-31","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Pruitt_Christina_H407792_20250731.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}