{"id":"alj-G906188-2026-01-05","awcc_number":"G906188","decision_date":"2026-01-05","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Karen Manues","employer_name":"La Darling Co. LLC","title":"MANUES VS. LA DARLING CO. LLC AWCC# G906188 January 05, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:6","denied:3"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Manues_Karen_G906188_20260105.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Manues_Karen_G906188_20260105.pdf","text_length":8034,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. G906188 \n \n \nKAREN R. MANUES, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nLA DARLING CO. LLC, \n EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nINDEMN. INS. CO. OF NO. AMER., \n CARRIER RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED JANUARY 5, 2026 \n \nHearing  before Chief Administrative  Law  Judge  O.  Milton  Fine  II  on January  2, \n2026, in Jonesboro, Craighead County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se, not appearing. \n \nRespondents represented by  Mr. Jason  M.  Ryburn, Attorney at Law, Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \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 January  2,  2026, in \nJonesboro,  Arkansas.    No  testimony  was  taken  in  the  case.    Claimant,  who \naccording  to  Commission  records  is pro  se,  failed  to  appear  at  the  hearing.   In \norder  to  address  adequately  this  matter  under  Ark.  Code  Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(1) \n(Repl. 2012)(Commission must “conduct the hearing . . . in a manner which best \nascertains the rights of the parties”), and without objection, I have blue-backed to \nthe  record documents from the Commission’s file on the claim,  consisting  of 22 \npages.  In accordance with Sapp v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2010 Ark. App. 517, 2010 \n\nMANUES – G906188 \n \n2 \n \nArk.  App.  LEXIS 549,  these  documents  have  been  served  on  the  parties  in \nconjunction with this opinion. \n The record reflects the following procedural history: \n Per  the  First  Report  of  Injury  or  Illness  filed on September  20,  2019, \nClaimant  purportedly suffered an injury to her  left  leg at  work on September  9, \n2019, when some metal racks fell on her.  According to the Form AR-2 that was \nalso filed on September   9,   2019, Respondents accepted the injury   as \ncompensable  and  paid  medical  and  indemnity  benefits  pursuant  thereto.  As \nreflected by the original and amended Forms AR-4 that were filed on February 3 \nand 9, 2021, respectively, Respondents closed this matter as of that first date. \n In  a letter  to  the  Legal  Advisor  Division  of  the  Commission  received  on \nJanuary 27, 2025, Claimant wrote: \nI  am  writing  to  you  about  my  injury  in  September  of  2019.    I  need \nfurther medical assistance on this matter. \n \nPlease open my case.  I am requesting a hearing on this matter. \n \nBecause  Claimant  did  not send to  the  Commission  a  completed  Legal  Advisor \nQuestionnaire by the deadline, her file was returned to the Commission’s general \nfiles on March 3, 2025; and she was notified of that fact by first-class mail sent to \nthe  same  address  as she  furnished to  the  Commission  in her  January  27,  2025, \ncorrespondence. \n However,  Claimant  again  requested  a  hearing;  and  in  this  instance,  on \nMarch 10, 2025, she returned a completed questionnaire.  Respondents’ counsel \n\nMANUES – G906188 \n \n3 \n \nmade  his  entry  of  appearance  on  March  21,  2025.  Due  to  the  failure  at  an \nattempt to set up at legal advisor conference, the matter was reassigned to me on \nApril  1,  2025.    On  April  2,  2025,  I  sent  preliminary  notices  and  prehearing \nquestionnaires to the parties.  However, because Claimant failed to complete and \nreturn  either  document,  her  file was again returned to the Commission’s general \nfiles on May 6, 2025.  She was notified of this by first-class mail. \n The  record  reflects  that  nothing  further  took  place  on  the  claim  until \nOctober 16, 2025.  On that date, Respondents filed the instant motion, asking for \ndismissal of the matter under 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d) (formerly AWCC R. 099.13).  \nThe  file  was  reassigned  to me  on October  17, 2025; and on that  same  date, my \noffice  wrote  Claimant,  asking  for  a  response  to  the  motion  within  20  days.    The \nletter  was  sent  by first  class  and  certified mail  to  the Corning,  Arkansas address \nthat Claimant had  used  on her  earlier correspondence  with  the  Commission.  \nSomeone  with  an  illegible  signature  claimed the certified  letter  on October 20, \n2025;  and the  first-class  letter  was  not  returned.    Regardless,  no  response  from \nClaimant to the motion was forthcoming. \n On November 7, 2025, a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was scheduled \nfor January  2,  2026,  at  12:30 p.m.  at  the Craighead  County  Courthouse in \nJonesboro.    The  notice  was  sent  to  Claimant  via  first-class  and  certified  mail  to \nthe same address as before.  In this instance, the certified letter was claimed on \n\nMANUES – G906188 \n \n4 \n \nNovember  12,  2025,  by  someone  with  an  illegible  signature,  while  the  first-class \nletter was not returned. \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 the foregoing authority. \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. No Form AR-C has ever been filed in connection with this matter. \n4. No other document before the Commission in this matter constitutes \na  claim  for  additional  benefits under  Ark.  Code  Ann. § 11-9-702(c) \n(Repl. 2012). \n5. Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss is denied because no claim exists \nto be subject to dismissal. \n\nMANUES – G906188 \n \n5 \n \nIII.  DISCUSSION \n 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d) (formerly 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 No Form AR-C has been filed in AWCC No. H202191.  That is the means \nfor filing a “formal claim.”  While a Form AR-1  was  filed,  that  does  not  suffice  to \ninstigate a claim. \n Per Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(c) (Repl. 2012): \nA claim for additional compensation must specifically state that it is \na  claim  for  additional  compensation.    Documents  which  do  not \nspecifically request  additional  benefits  shall  not  be  considered  a \nclaim for additional compensation. \n \n(Emphasis added)  See White Cty. Judge v. Menser, 2020 Ark. 140, 597 S.W.3d \n640.  Claimant’s January 27, 2025, letter to the Commission, quoted above, falls \n\nMANUES – G906188 \n \n6 \n \nshort  of  this  standard.    My  review  of  the  evidence  discloses no document \nsufficient to constitute a filing of a claim for additional benefits under the standard \ncited above. \n Because no claim has been filed, it follows that there is no claim subject to \ndismissal per Respondents’ motion.  The Motion to Dismiss thus must be, and \nhereby is, respectfully denied. \nIV.  CONCLUSION \n In  accordance  with  the Findings  of Fact  and Conclusions  of Law  set  forth \nabove, the Motion to Dismiss is hereby denied. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n      ________________________________ \n      O. MILTON FINE II \n      Chief Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. G906188 KAREN R. MANUES, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT LA DARLING CO. LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT INDEMN. INS. CO. OF NO. AMER., CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JANUARY 5, 2026 Hearing before Chief Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on January 2, 2026, in Jonesboro...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:32:28.042Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-G906188-2026-01-05","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Manues_Karen_G906188_20260105.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}