{"id":"alj-H408020-2025-11-19","awcc_number":"H408020","decision_date":"2025-11-19","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Yuliana Lorenzo","employer_name":"Dollar Tree Stores, Inc","title":"LORENZO VS. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC. AWCC# H408020 November 19, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:10","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["ankle"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Lorenzo_Yuliana_H408020_20251119.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Lorenzo_Yuliana_H408020_20251119.pdf","text_length":6170,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H408020 \n \nYULIANA CARDENAS LORENZO, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nDOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., \nEMPLOYER                                                                              RESPONDENT  \n \nAIU INSURANCE. CO., \nCARRIER                                                                                                             RESPONDENT \n \nSEDGWICK CLAIMS MGMT, \nTHIRD-PARTY ADMINISTRATOR                                                                RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED NOVEMBER 19, 2025 \n \nHearing conducted on Friday, October 17,  2025, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission (the Commission), Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Steven Porch, in Forrest City, \nSt. Francis County, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant is Pro Se, of Memphis, Tennessee.  \n \nThe Respondents were represented by Ms. Melissa Wood, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This matter comes before the Commission on a Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondents \non July 28, 2025.  A hearing on the motion was conducted on October 17, 2025, in Forrest City, \nArkansas.  Claimant, according to Commission file is Pro Se, failed to appear at the hearing.  \nThe Claimant worked for the Respondent/Employer as a DC 18 3\nRD\n SHIFT. The date for \nClaimant’s  alleged  injury  was  on December 9,   2024. She   reported   her injury   to \nRespondent/Employer on the same day as the incident. Admitted into evidence was Respondents’ \nExhibit 1, pleadings, and correspondence, consisting of 9 pages, and Commission Ex. 1, pleadings, \nand U.S. Mail return receipts, consisting of 7 pages, as discussed infra. \n\nLORENZO, AWCC No. H408020 \n \n2 \n \nThe record reflects on December 12, 2024, a Form AR-1 was filed purporting that Claimant \ninjured  her  right  ankle  while  attempting  to  pick-up  a  heavy  box.  On  December  17,  2024,  the \nRespondents filed an AR-2, neither accepting nor denying compensability. On January 24, 2025, \nClaimant  through  her  then-attorney,  Mark  Peoples,  filed  an AR-C  purporting  that  Claimant \nsustained work-related injury to her right foot. On January 30, 2025, Respondents filed  another \nForm AR-2 with the first day of disability as December 1, but this date appears incomplete and \ninaccurate. On  March  6,  2025,  Claimant’s  then-attorney,  Mark  Peoples,  filed  a  Motion  to \nWithdraw as Counsel of Record. The Full Commission granted Mr. People’s motion on April 9, \n2025.    \nRespondents filed a Motion to Dismiss due to Claimant’s failure to prosecute her claim on \nJuly 28, 2025. The Claimant was sent, on August 8, 2025, notice of the Motion to Dismiss, via \ncertified  and  regular  U.S.  Mail,  to  her last  known  address.  The  certified motion notice  was not \nclaimed by Claimant as  noted on the August 23,  2025, return receipt. This notice was  also sent \nregular U.S. Mail on August 8, 2025, but did not return to the Commission. The Claimant did not \nrespond to the Motion, in writing, as required. Thus, in accordance with applicable Arkansas law, \nthe Claimant was mailed due and proper legal notice of Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss hearing \ndate  at  her current  address  of  record  via  the  United  States  Postal  Service  (USPS),  First  Class \nCertified  Mail,  Return  Receipt  Requested,  and  regular  First-Class  Mail,  on September  8,  2025. \nThe certified notice was claimed as noted by the September 17, 2025, return receipt. Likewise, the \nhearing notice sent regular U.S. Mail was not returned to the Commission. The hearing took place \non October 17, 2025. And as mentioned before, the Claimant did not show up to the hearing. \n \n \n\nLORENZO, AWCC No. H408020 \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 October 17, 2025, \nhearing. \n \n3. Respondents have proven by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has \nfailed to prosecute her claim under 11 C.A.R. §25-110(d) (formerly AWCC Rule \n099.13).  \n \n4. The Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \n \n5. This claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice.     \n \n \nIII.  DISCUSSION \n 11 C.A.R. §25-110(d) 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 11  C.A.R. §25-110(d), the  Commission  scheduled  and  conducted  a \nhearing,  with  reasonable  notice, on  the Respondents’ Motion  to Dismiss. The  certified  hearing \nnotice was claimed by Claimant, per the return postal notice bearing the September 17, 2025, date. \nThus, I find by the preponderance of the evidence that reasonable notice was given to the Claimant.  \n\nLORENZO, AWCC No. H408020 \n \n4 \n \nFurthermore, 11 C.A.R. §25-110(d) allows the Commission, upon meritorious application, \nto dismiss an action pending before it due to a want of prosecution. The Claimant filed her Form \nAR-C on January 24, 2025. Since then, she has failed to request a bona fide hearing. Therefore, I \ndo find by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has failed to prosecute her claim. Thus, \nRespondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \n \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. H408020 YULIANA CARDENAS LORENZO, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT AIU INSURANCE. CO., CARRIER RESPONDENT SEDGWICK CLAIMS MGMT, THIRD-PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 19, 2025 Hearing conducted on Friday, Oc...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:34:39.705Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H408020-2025-11-19","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Lorenzo_Yuliana_H408020_20251119.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}