Jodi Munhall vs. Arkansas Cardiology Pa

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H207031 JODI MUNHALL, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ARKANSAS CARDIOLOGY PA, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT FARMINGTON CASUALTY COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 26, 2023 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge Steven Porch on May 23, 2023 in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. Claimant, pro se. The Respondents were represented by Mr. Guy Alton Wade, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. I. BACKGROUND This matter comes before the Commission on a Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondents. A hearing on the motion was conducted on May 23, 2023, in Little Rock, Arkansas. Claimant, who is pro se, did not appear for the hearing. Respondents were represented at the hearing by Mr. Guy Alton Wade, Attorney at Law, of Little Rock, Arkansas. In addition to Respondents’ argument, the record consists of the Commission’s file–which has been incorporated herein in its entirety by reference. The evidence reflects that Claimant’s injury occurred on October 6, 2021, where she purportedly injured her left knee. This incident allegedly occurred when Claimant was assisting a patient off a scanning table and patient grabbed Claimant’s left knee causing said knee to hyper extend during the course and scope of her employment. Claimant called Respondents’ counsel, Guy Alton Wade, stating that she does not want

MUNHALL – H207031 2 to pursue this claim and followed it up with a letter dated February 14, 2023, making the same statement. Nevertheless, a hearing was held on May 23, 2023, in Little Rock, Arkansas on the Motion to Dismiss. And as previously stated, the claimant did not appear for the hearing. II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW After reviewing the record as a whole and other matters properly before the Commission, I hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): 1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. 2. All parties received reasonable and timely notice of the Motion to Dismiss and the hearing thereon pursuant to AWCC R. 099.13. 3. Respondents did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has failed to prosecute her claim under AWCC R. 099.13. 4. The Motion to Dismiss should be, and hereby is, granted. III. DISCUSSION AWCC 099.13 provides: Upon meritorious application to the Commission from either party in an action pending before the Commission, requesting that the claim be dismissed for want of prosecution, the Commission may, upon reasonable notice to all parties, enter an order dismissing the claim for want of prosecution. See generally Johnson v. Triple T Foods, 55 Ark. App. 83, 85, 929 S.W.2d 730 (1996). Under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(3) (Repl. 2012), Respondents must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that dismissal should be granted. The standard

MUNHALL – H207031 3 “preponderance of the evidence” means the evidence having greater weight or convincing force. Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 S.W.3d 415; Smith v. Magnet Cove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947). A claimant’s testimony is never considered uncontroverted. Nix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 Ark. App. 303, 879 S.W.2d 457 (1994). The determination of a witness’ credibility and how much weight to accord to that person’s testimony are solely up to the Commission. White v. Gregg Agricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001). The Commission must sort through conflicting evidence and determine the true facts. Id. In so doing, the Commission is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant or any other witness, but may accept and translate into findings of fact only those portions of the testimony that it deems worthy of belief. Id. After consideration of all the evidence, I find that Claimant and Respondents were given reasonable notice, at the addresses provided by each party, for the Motion to Dismiss hearing under Rule 13. I further find that Claimant has abridged this rule. Thus, I find Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss should be granted. CONCLUSION Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. ________________________________ STEVEN PORCH Administrative Law Judge