{"id":"full_commission-G807164-2024-07-30","awcc_number":"G807164","decision_date":"2024-07-30","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Kimberly Clardy","employer_name":"University Of Arkansas Fayetteville","title":"CLARDY VS. UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE AWCC# G807164 JULY 30, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["remanded:1","vacated:1","modified:1","dismissed:4","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","neck","strain"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Clardy_Kimberly_G807164_20240730.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Clardy_Kimberly_G807164_20240730.pdf","text_length":7775,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  G807164 \n \nKIMBERLY CLARDY, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nUNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED JULY 30, 2024 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE AARON L. MARTIN, Attorney at \nLaw, Fayetteville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE ROBERT H. \nMONTGOMERY, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Vacated & Remanded. \n \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \nThe claimant appeals an administrative law judge’s opinion filed \nFebruary 29, 2024.  The administrative law judge found that the claim \nshould be dismissed without prejudice.  After reviewing the entire record de \nnovo, the Full Commission vacates the administrative law judge’s opinion, \nand we remand for further proceedings.     \nI.  HISTORY \n The parties stipulated that the employee-employer-carrier \nrelationship existed on October 3, 2018.  The parties stipulated that the \nclaimant “was working as a temporary employee for the University of \n\nCLARDY - G807164  2\n  \n \n \nArkansas on October 3, 2018” and that the claimant “alleges an accidental \ninjury to her right shoulder on October 3, 2018.” \n The parties stipulated that the claimant “called [the] Company Nurse \non October 8, 2018 to report an on-the-job injury.”  The parties stipulated \nthat the claimant “received medical treatment at Pat Walker Health Center \non October 9, 2018, and the bill related to that treatment was paid by \nRespondents on November 4, 2018.”  The parties stipulated that “no \nadditional medical or indemnity benefits were paid relative to this claim after \nNovember 4, 2018.” \n The parties stipulated that the claimant “filed an AR-C with the \nCommission for initial and additional benefits on April 5, 2019.”  The parties \nstipulated that the respondents “filed a Motion to Dismiss (MTD) for failure \nto prosecute on October 30, 2023.”  The parties stipulated that the claimant \n“filed her Response in Opposition to the MTD on November 27, 2023, and \nexpressed her wish to move forward with a hearing on her claim.”     \n A pre-hearing order was filed on January 18, 2024.  The claimant \ncontended, “The claimant contends that she sustained a compensable \ninjury to her right shoulder on 10/3/18.  In addition, the claimant contends \nthat she is entitled to additional reasonable and necessary medical \ntreatment in connection with her compensable right shoulder injury.  Next, \nthe claimant contends that the employer, without reasonable cause, refused \n\nCLARDY - G807164  3\n  \n \n \nto return the claimant to work where suitable employment was available.  \nFinally, the claimant contends that she is entitled to controverted attorney \nfees for indemnity benefits awarded and any and all future indemnity \nbenefits arising from the right shoulder injury.  The claimant hereby \nreserves her rights to any and all additional benefits.”   \n The respondents contended, “The claimant reported an injury to her \nneck on October 3, 2018 while lifting a crate of mail.  The claimant was \ntreated at Pat Walker Health Center on October 9, 2018 and was diagnosed \nwith a soft tissue neck strain.  The claimant received no other medical \ntreatment related to her alleged injury.  The bill related to the medical \ntreatment was paid by Respondents on November 4, 2018.  There was no \nadditional activity or requests for a hearing after that date.”   \n The respondents contended, “In April, 2019, the claimant filed a \nForm C.  No hearing was requested.  There was no additional activity on \nthis claim.  On October 30, 2023, the Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss \non October 30, 2023.  The claimant has now requested a hearing in \nresponse to the Respondents Motion to Dismiss.” \n The respondents contended, “Respondents contend that the \nclaimant has received all benefits and medical treatment to which she might \nhave been entitled as a result of her soft tissue neck strain injury.  After the \nreport of injury the claimant attended one medical appointment, the bill was \n\nCLARDY - G807164  4\n  \n \n \npaid by Respondents in November, 2018, and no other action was taken by \nclaimant other than filing a Form C in April, 2019.  The claimant has not \npursued any additional benefits and the claim was dormant until \nRespondents filed the Motion to Dismiss in October, 2023.  The \nRespondents would contend that the limitations of Ark. Code Ann. {11-9-\n702 apply to this claim.  The claimant’s claim for additional benefits is time \nbarred pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. {11-9-702(b)(1), and the claim should be \ndismissed pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. {11-9-702(a)(4).  The Respondents \nreserve the right to modify these contentions [as] necessary pending further \ndiscovery.\"   \n The parties agreed to litigate the following issue:  \"1.  Whether this \nclaim is barred by the statute of limitations.  All other issues are reserved by \nthe parties.”   \n An administrative law judge filed an opinion on February 29, 2024.  \nThe administrative law judge found, among other things, that the claim \nshould be dismissed without prejudice.  The claimant appeals to the Full \nCommission. \nII.  ADJUDICATION \n Commission Rule 099.13 provides, in pertinent part: \nUpon meritorious application to the Commission from either \nparty in an action pending before the Commission, requesting \nthat the claim be dismissed for want of prosecution, the \n\nCLARDY - G807164  5\n  \n \n \nCommission may, upon reasonable notice to the parties, enter \nan order dismissing the claim for want of prosecution.   \n \n The purpose of Commission Rule 099.13 is to permit the claimant to \nresist dismissal of the claim and to show, if she can, why the application for \ndismissal is without merit.  Dura Craft Boats, Inc. v. Daugherty, 247 Ark. \n125, 444 S.W.2d 562 (Ark. 1969).   \n In the present matter, the claimant alleged that she had sustained a \nwork-related injury to her right shoulder on October 3, 2018.  Although they \nhave not stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable injury, the \nrespondents paid for a medical visit received by the claimant on October 9, \n2018.  The claimant filed a claim for initial and additional benefits on April 5, \n2019.  On October 30, 2023, the respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss, \nasserting that the claimant had failed to prosecute her claim.  The claimant \nfiled a timely response on November 27, 2023 and “expressed her wish to \nmove forward with a hearing on her claim.”   \n Rule 099.13 is designed to permit the Workers’ Compensation \nCommission to see that the rights of the claimant are not prejudiced.  \nDaugherty, supra.  In the present matter, in order to ensure that the rights of \nthe claimant are not prejudiced, the Full Commission vacates the \nadministrative law judge’s dismissal of the claim.  We remand the case to \nthe administrative law judge for further proceedings.  The Full Commission \ndirects the administrative law judge to adjudicate all pertinent issues, \n\nCLARDY - G807164  6\n  \n \n \nincluding whether the claimant proved she sustained a compensable injury, \nwhether the claimant proved she was entitled to additional benefits, and \nwhether the statute of limitations bars the claim.  The Full Commission \nstrongly advises the claimant to introduce evidence in accordance with Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-705(c)(Supp. 2023).   \n IT IS SO ORDERED.   \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G807164 KIMBERLY CLARDY, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JULY 30, 2024","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:45.237Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-G807164-2024-07-30","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Clardy_Kimberly_G807164_20240730.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}