{"id":"alj-H303830-2025-11-05","awcc_number":"H303830","decision_date":"2025-11-05","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Hollander Schlieder","employer_name":"Dat Pooch Mobile Dog Grooming, LLC","title":"SCHLIEDER VS. DAT POOCH MOBILE DOG GROOMING, LLC AWCC# H303830 November 05, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:10","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["ankle"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Schlieder_Hollander_H303830_20251105.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Schlieder_Hollander_H303830_20251105.pdf","text_length":5861,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H303830 \n \nHOLLIANDER SCHLIEDER, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nDAT POOCH MOBILE DOG GROOMING, LLC, \nEMPLOYER                                                                                  RESPONDENT  \n \nTRUMBULL INSURANCE COMPANY, \nCARRIER                                                                                                             RESPONDENT \n \nTHE HARTFORD, \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR                                                                RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED NOVEMBER 5, 2025 \n \nHearing conducted on Tuesday, September 30, 2025, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission  (the  Commission),  Administrative  Law  Judge (ALJ) Steven  Porch,  in Little  Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant is Pro Se, of Brighton, Colorado.  \n \nThe Respondents  were represented by Mr. Randy  Murphy,  Attorney  at  Law, Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This matter comes before the Commission on a Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondents \non July 21, 2025.  A hearing on the motion was conducted on September 30, 2025, in Little Rock, \nArkansas.  Claimant, according to Commission file is Pro Se, failed to appear at the hearing.  \nThe  Claimant  worked  for  the  Respondent/Employer  as  a hospital  professional.  The  date \nfor  Claimant’s  alleged  injury  was  on October 26,   2022. 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 4 pages, and Commission Ex. 1, pleadings, \nand U.S. Mail return receipts, consisting of 5 pages, as discussed infra. \n\nSCHLIEDER, AWCC No. H303830 \n \n2 \n \nThe  record  reflects  on June 15, 2023,  a  Form  AR-C  was  filed  purporting  that  Claimant \nsustained  work-related  injury  when stepping  into  a  work  van  with  a  rotted-out first  step. The \nClaimant’s right foot sunk into the rotted-out step injuring her right ankle. On June 22, 2023, a \nForm AR-1 was filed with the Commission noting that the date of disability was on October 26, \n2022. On June 26, 2023, a Form AR-2 was filed accepting compensability, medical-only.   \nRespondents filed a Motion to Dismiss due to Claimant’s failure to prosecute her claim. \nThe Claimant was sent, on July 28, 2025, notice of the Motion to Dismiss, via certified and regular \nU.S.  Mail,  to  her last  known  address.  The  certified motion notice  was claimed  by  Claimant as \nnoted on the August 4, 2025, return receipt. This notice sent regular U.S. Mail did not return to the \nCommission. The  Claimant  did not respond  to  the  Motion,  in  writing,  as required. Thus,  in \naccordance with applicable Arkansas law, the Claimant was mailed due and proper legal notice of \nRespondents’ Motion to Dismiss hearing date at her current address of record via the United States \nPostal  Service  (USPS), First  Class  Certified  Mail,  Return  Receipt  Requested,  and  regular  First-\nClass Mail, on August 22, 2025. The certified notice was claimed as noted by the August 29, 2025, \nreturn receipt. Likewise,  the  hearing  notice  sent  regular  First-Class  was  not  returned  to  the \nCommission. The  hearing  took  place  on September  30,  2025.  And  as  mentioned  before,  the \nClaimant did not show up to the hearing. \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\nSCHLIEDER, AWCC No. H303830 \n \n3 \n \n \n2. The  Claimant  and  Respondents  both  had  reasonable  notice  of  the September 30, \n2025, hearing. \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 August 29, 2025, date. \nThus, I find by the preponderance of the evidence that reasonable notice was given to the Claimant.  \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 June 15, 2023. Since then, she has failed to request a bona fide hearing. Therefore, I do \nfind by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has failed to prosecute her claim. Thus, \nRespondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \n \n\nSCHLIEDER, AWCC No. H303830 \n \n4 \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. H303830 HOLLIANDER SCHLIEDER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT DAT POOCH MOBILE DOG GROOMING, LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TRUMBULL INSURANCE COMPANY, CARRIER RESPONDENT THE HARTFORD, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 5, 2025 Hearing conducted on Tuesd...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:34:14.592Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H303830-2025-11-05","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Schlieder_Hollander_H303830_20251105.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}