{"id":"alj-H301532-2026-02-10","awcc_number":"H301532","decision_date":"2026-02-10","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Brandon Jackson","employer_name":"Producers Rice Mill, Inc","title":"JACKSON VS. PRODUCERS RICE MILL, INC. AWCC# H301532 February 10, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:4","granted:2","denied:2"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/JACKSON_BRANDON_H301532_20260210.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"JACKSON_BRANDON_H301532_20260210.pdf","text_length":4564,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nAWCC FILE No H301532 \n \nBRANDON L. JACKSON, EMPLOYEE        CLAIMANT \n \nPRODUCERS RICE MILL, INC., EMPLOYER                    RESPONDENT \n \nFARMINGTON CASUALTY CO./ TRAVELERS, \nCARRIER/TPA                    RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED 10 February 2026 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (“the Commission”) \nAdministrative Law Judge JayO. Howe on 14 January 2026 in Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nThe claimant appeared pro se. \n \nFriday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, Mr. Guy Alton Wade, appeared for the respondents. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A hearing on the respondents’ Motion to Dismiss was held on this matter in Little \nRock, Arkansas, on 14 January 2026. This case relates to an accepted compensable \nworkplace injury that occurred on or about 9 October 2022. The record from the hearing \nconsists of the transcript; Respondents’ Exhibit No 1, which consisted of ten pages of \ndocuments and pleadings in support of their motion; and Commission’s Exhibit No 1, two \npages that included a Form AR-C filed by the claimant and a Postal Service delivery receipt \nfrom Commission correspondence with the claimant.  \nThe evidence showed that the claimant filed a Form AR-C through counsel on 6 \nMarch 2024. The respondents filed a First Report of Injury indicating an injury had been \nreported to them on 9 October 2022. They subsequently filed a Form AR-2 indicating that \nthe claim was accepted and that benefits were being paid accordingly.  \nClaimant’s then-counsel later sought to be relieved from the matter; and the Full \nCommission entered an Order to that end on 30 August 2024. \n\nB. Jackson- H301532 \n2 \n \nOn 6 November 2025, the respondents requested that this claim be dismissed for \nwant of prosecution under the Commission Rule at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d). They noted that \nhe had not requested a hearing on any issue ripe for litigation. Their exhibit evidenced that \na payment for permanent partial disability benefits had been paid as part of the claim. \n Notice of the respondents’ motion was sent to the claimant, consistent with \nCommission practices, via First Class Mail and Certified Mail. Notice of a hearing on the \nrespondents’ motion was sent in the same manner. The claimant appeared at the hearing \nand objected to the dismissal of his claim. He argued that he believed that he was entitled \nto additional benefits beyond those that had already been provided \nFINDINDGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After reviewing the record as a whole, I hereby make the following findings of fact \nand conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n 1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter. \n2. The parties were provided with reasonable notice of the Motion to Dismiss \nand the hearing on the motion. \n \n3. The evidence does not preponderate in favor of finding that the claimant has \nfailed to prosecute his claim under 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d). \n \n4. The Motion to Dismiss is hereby denied without prejudice. \n \n5. The claimant has requested a hearing on whether he is entitled to additional \nbenefits. \n \n6. This claim will proceed to a hearing on the merits. \n \nDISCUSSION \nThe respondents appeared on 14 January 2026 and presented their motion. As \nargued by the respondents at the hearing, 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d) provides for a dismissal for \nfailure to prosecute an action upon application by either party and reasonable notice. As \n\nB. Jackson- H301532 \n3 \n \nnoted above, notice of the respondents’ motion and notice of the scheduling of the hearing \nwas provided to the claimant. \nThe claimant appeared to argue against the dismissal of his claim. While he \nacknowledged that some benefits had been paid, including a payment for permanent partial \ndisability benefits, the claimant stated that he believed that he was entitled to additional \nbenefits. He requested a hearing while on the record and confirmed his contact information \nso that the parties could conduct discovery. Based on the evidence presented, a dismissal is \nnot appropriate at this time. The claimant was advised that as a pro se litigant, he would be \nexpected to communicate with the respondents in their collaborative efforts to advance the \nclaim to a hearing. \nPrehearing questionnaires will immediately be provided to the parties so that this \nmatter may proceed to a hearing on the merits. \nORDER \n The Motion to Dismiss is denied without prejudice. \nSO ORDERED. \n________________________________ \n       JAYO. HOWE \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWCC FILE No H301532 BRANDON L. JACKSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT PRODUCERS RICE MILL, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT FARMINGTON CASUALTY CO./ TRAVELERS, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED 10 February 2026 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (“the Commission...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:32:00.363Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H301532-2026-02-10","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/JACKSON_BRANDON_H301532_20260210.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}