{"id":"alj-H308265-2026-01-14","awcc_number":"H308265","decision_date":"2026-01-14","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"David Daniels","employer_name":"Tyson Poultry, Inc","title":"DANIELS VS. TYSON POULTRY, INC. AWCC# H308265 January 14, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:7","granted:2"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/DANIELS_DAVID_H308265_20260114.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"DANIELS_DAVID_H308265_20260114.pdf","text_length":4049,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nAWCC FILE No H308265 \n \nDAVID L. DANIELS, EMPLOYEE        CLAIMANT \n \nTYSON POULTRY, INC., SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER                    RESPONDENT \n \nTYNET CORP., TPA                   RESPONDENT \n  \n \n \nOPINION FILED 14 JANUARY 2026 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (“the Commission”) \nAdministrative Law Judge JayO. Howe on 12 November 2025 in Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nThe pro se claimant failed to appear. \n \nThe Roberts Law Firm, Mr. J. Matthew Mauldin, 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 12 November 2025. This case relates to an alleged workplace injury \noccurring on 23 August 2023. The record of the hearing consists of the transcript; \nRespondents’ Exhibit No 1, which consisted of six pages of documents and pleadings in \nsupport of their motion; and Commission’s Exhibit No 1, which consisted of five pages of \nclaim-related documents, including two Postal Service delivery receipts from Commission \ncorrespondence with the claimant.  \nOn 22 December 2023, the claimant filed a Form AR-C relating to this claim. A \nprehearing telephone conference was eventually held on 3 December 2024 \nThe respondents later requested that this claim be dismissed under Commission \nRule 099.13 (now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d)) and/or Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702. They \nargued that the claimant failed to participate in a prehearing telephone conference \nscheduled for 17 September 2024. A conference was subsequently held on 3 December 2024, \n\nD. DANIELS- H308265 \n2 \n \nand the claim was returned to the Commission’s General Files at that time. Then, on 19 \nSeptember 2025, the respondents moved for a dismissal for want of prosecution. They \nargued that the claimant had not taken any action on his claim and that no hearing had \nbeen set on any issue ripe for litigation. \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. Delivery receipts from the Postal \nService show that the claimant accepted those mailings. He failed, however, to attend the \nhearing or to submit an objection to the respondents’ motion for a dismissal. \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 preponderates that the claimant has failed to prosecute his \nclaim under 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d). \n \n4. The Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted; this claim is dismissed without \nprejudice under 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d). \n \nDISCUSSION \nThe respondents appeared on 12 November 2025 and presented their motion. As \nargued by the respondents at the hearing, Commission Rule 099.13 (now 11 C.A.R. § 25-\n110(d)) provides for a dismissal for failure to prosecute an action upon application by either \nparty and reasonable notice. The claimant did not file a response to the motion or appear at \nthe hearing to argue against the dismissal of his claim.  \n\nD. DANIELS- H308265 \n3 \n \nThe record does not indicate any action being taken by the claimant after the claim \nwas returned to General Files on 4 December 2024. Likewise, no objection was filed to the \nrespondents’ motion to dismiss this claim. Further, the claimant did not appear at the \nhearing to object to the dismissal of his claim. Based on the evidence presented, a dismissal \nwithout prejudice is appropriate.  \nORDER \n The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT \nPREJUDICE. \nSO ORDERED. \n________________________________ \n       JAYO. HOWE \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWCC FILE No H308265 DAVID L. DANIELS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT TYSON POULTRY, INC., SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TYNET CORP., TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED 14 JANUARY 2026 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (“the Commission”) Administrative Law Judge...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:32:51.004Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H308265-2026-01-14","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/DANIELS_DAVID_H308265_20260114.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}