{"id":"alj-H304034-2025-09-12","awcc_number":"H304034","decision_date":"2025-09-12","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Athena Holland","employer_name":"Tyson Poultry, Inc","title":"HOLLAND VS. TYSON POULTRY, INC. AWCC# H304034 September 12, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:2","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HOLLAND_ATHENA_H304034_20250912.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"HOLLAND_ATHENA_H304034_20250912.pdf","text_length":8140,"full_text":"1 \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H304034 \n \n \n \nATHENA C. HOLLAND,  \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nTYSON POULTRY, INC.,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n                                                                                     \nTYSON POULTRY, INC./ \nTYNET CORP. \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                    RESPONDENT                    \n                                                                                                                     \n \n \nOPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 12, 2025,  \nGRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE FILED \nJULY 18, 2025 \n \n \nHearing conducted on Thursday, September   11,   2025, before  the  Arkansas  Workers’ \nCompensation Commission (the Commission), Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mike Pickens, in \nEl Dorado, Union County, Arkansas. \n \nThe claimant, Ms. Athena C. Holland, of Bryant, Saline County, Arkansas (formerly of Camden, \nOuachita County, Arkansas) appeared pro se. \n \nThe respondents were represented by the Honorable J. Matthew Mauldin, Roberts Law Firm US, \nP.C., Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.  \n \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n          A hearing was conducted on Thursday, September 11, 2025, to determine whether this claim \nshould be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(a)(4) (2025 Lexis \nReplacement) and 11 C.A.R. Section 25-110(d) (Code of AR Regulations 2025) (formerly cited \nas Commission Rule 099.13 (2025 Lexis Replacement)). \n         On Wednesday, October 2, 2024, this claim was the subject of a previous hearing wherein \nthe Commission granted the claimant’s request to voluntarily dismiss her claim to which the \n\nAthena C. Holland, AWCC No. H304034  \n2 \n \nrespondents had no objection. (Commission Exhibit 1). The claimant appeared in person at hearing \nand testified under oath she wanted to voluntarily dismiss her claim. In an opinion filed October \n3,  2024,  the  ALJ  granted  the claimant’s request and dismissed  the  claim  without  prejudice. \n(Comms’n Ex. 2).  \n        A little over two (2) months later, on December 6, 2024, the claimant refiled a Form AR-C. \nThereafter,  the  claimant  still  persisted  in  her  failure  and/or  refusal  to comply with the ALJ’s \nprevious  order  to  compel discovery filed  June  4,  2024;  she  failed  and/or  refused  to  request  a \nhearing; she failed and/or refused to take any action(s) pursue this claim. On July 18, 2025, the \nrespondents filed a motion to dismiss with or without prejudice and brief in support thereof (MTD). \n(Respondents’ Exhibits 1 and 2). In accordance with the applicable law the claimant was provided \ndue  and  legal  notice  of both the respondents’ MTD as  well  as  the date,  time,  and  place  of  the \nsubject hearing. \n          The respondents’ MTD filed July 18, 2025, contains a thorough and accurate statement of \nall  the  relevant  facts  herein.  Therefore,  I  hereby  incorporate  by  reference  the  facts  as  stated  in \nparagraphs 1-19 of the respondents’ MTD filed July 18, 2025, as if set forth word-for-word herein. \n(RX1 at 1-19). \n          In summary, the claimant testified under oath at the subject hearing that she had been too \nbusy and had not been given sufficient time to pursue both her workers’ compensation claim and \nher apparent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and federal lawsuit against her \nformer employer, Tyson Poultry, Inc. (Tyson). She also testified she had returned to work on at \nleast  two  (2)  occasions  after  her  physician  had  released  her  to return  to  work  following  her \ncompensable  injury.  She  testified  she  was  terminated  for  attendance  problems,  but  that  she \nbelieved she was actually terminated for other allegedly unlawful reasons which are the subject of \n\nAthena C. Holland, AWCC No. H304034  \n3 \n \nher apparent EEOC claim and federal lawsuit. She testified Tyson had offered her a job at some \ntime  after  she  was  terminated,  but  she  did  not  accept  the  job  offer  and  instead  apparently  is \npursuing an EEOC claim and federal lawsuit. The claimant testified she spent a great deal of time \nand effort trying to retain an attorney to represent her in this workers’ compensation claim, but \nthat no attorney would take her case. (Hearing Transcript).   \n         The record herein consists of the transcripts of both the October 2, 2024, and September 11, \n2025, MTD hearings, and any and all exhibits contained therein and attached thereto. \n \nDISCUSSION \n        Consistent with Ark. Code Ann.§ 11-9-702(a)(4) (2025 Lexis Replacement), as well as our \ncourt of appeals’ ruling in Dillard vs. Benton County Sheriff’s Office,  87  Ark.  App.  379,  192 \nS.W.3d  287  (Ark.  App.  2004),  the  Commission  scheduled  and  conducted  a  hearing  on the \nrespondents’ MTD. Rather  than  recite  a  detailed  analysis  of  the  record,  suffice  it  to  say  the \npreponderance of the evidence introduced at the hearing and contained in the record conclusively \nreveals the claimant has failed and/or refused to either actively prosecute her claim or to request a \nhearing in the last six (6) months.  \n        Furthermore – and  significantly – the  claimant  has  repeatedly  failed  and/or  refused  to \ncooperate in the discovery process as required by law and as she was specifically ordered to do in \nthe ALJ’s order to compel discovery filed June 4, 2024, over one (1) year and three (3) months \nafter  the  order  was  issued  and  filed. This  failure  and/or  refusal  to  comply  with  this  fair, \nreasonable, and lawful Commission order in and of itself constitutes sufficient grounds to dismiss \nthe claimant’s claim for  a second time. I find the claimant’s testimony concerning why she has \n\nAthena C. Holland, AWCC No. H304034  \n4 \n \nfailed and/or refused to cooperate in discovery and to comply with the ALJ’s June 4, 2024, order \nto compel discovery to be rather incomprehensible and without merit.   \n       Therefore, after a thorough consideration of the issues at bar, the applicable law as applied to \nthe facts of this claim, and other relevant matters of record including the representations of credible \ncounsel, I hereby make the following: \n \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. \n \n2. The claimant has not requested a hearing within the last six (6) months and has taken no \naction(s) to raise any issues related to or to prosecute this claim.  \n \n3. The  claimant  has unjustifiably repeatedly failed  and/or  refused – and  continues  to  fail \nand/or refuse – to  cooperate in the discovery process and to comply with the ALJ’s order \nto compel discovery filed June 4, 2024. \n \n4. Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence compels the decision the respondents’ MTD \nwith or without prejudice filed June 9, 2025, should be and hereby is GRANTED; and this \nclaim is dismissed without prejudice to its refiling pursuant to the deadlines prescribed by \nArk. Code Ann. Section 11-9-702(a) and (b) and 11 C.A.R. 25-110(d) (formerly cited as \nCommission Rule 099.13). \n \n        If they have not already done so, the respondents hereby are ordered to pay the court \nreporter’s invoice within twenty (20) days of their receipt thereof. \n        IT IS SO ORDERED. \n                                                                                             ____________________________                                                                                      \n                                                                                 Mike Pickens \n                                                                                             Administrative Law Judge \nMP/mp \n \n \n                                                                                \n \n \n \n \n\nAthena C. Holland, AWCC No. H304034  \n5","preview":"1 BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H304034 ATHENA C. HOLLAND, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT TYSON POULTRY, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TYSON POULTRY, INC./ TYNET CORP. CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 12, 2025, GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE FILED","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:36:16.163Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H304034-2025-09-12","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HOLLAND_ATHENA_H304034_20250912.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}