{"id":"alj-H400680-2026-04-16","awcc_number":"H400680","decision_date":"2026-04-16","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Sheila Whitlock","employer_name":"B & B Oil Co., Inc","title":"WHITLOCK VS. B & B OIL CO., INC. AWCC# H400680 April 16, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:12","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Whitlock_Sheila_H400680_20260416.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Whitlock_Sheila_H400680_20260416.pdf","text_length":6003,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H400680 \n \nSHEILA WHITLOCK, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nB & B OIL CO., INC., \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \nBRIDGEFIELD EMPLOYERS INS. CO., \nCARRIER                                                                                                             RESPONDENT \n \nSUMMIT CONSULTING, LLC, \nTPA                                                                                                                        RESPONDENT   \n \n \nOPINION FILED APRIL 16, 2025 \n \nHearing conducted on Friday, March 17,  2026,  before  the  Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission  (the  Commission),  Administrative  Law  Judge (ALJ) Steven  Porch,  in Little  Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant is represented  by  C.  Michael  White,  Attorney  at  Law, of North  Little  Rock, \nArkansas.  \n \nThe Respondents  were represented by Mr. Zachary  F.  Ryburn,  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 January 6, 2026.  A hearing on the motion was conducted on March 10, 2026, in Little Rock, \nArkansas.  Claimant’s and Respondent’s counsel did appear at the hearing.  \nThe  Claimant  worked  for  the  Respondent/Employer  as a deli manager.  The  date  for \nClaimant’s  alleged  injury  was  on January 19,   2024. This   incident   was   reported   to   the \nRespondent/Employer on the  same  day. Admitted  into  evidence  was Respondents’ Exhibit 1, \n\nWHITLOCK, AWCC No. H400680 \n \n2 \n \npleading, consisting of 1 page, and Commission Ex. 1, pleadings and correspondence, consisting \nof 7 pages, as discussed infra. \nThe record reflects on January 30, 2024, a Form AR-1 was filed purporting that Claimant, \nwhile taking trash up an icy hill slipped and fell resulting in pain under her right arm. On January \n30, 2024, a Form AR-2 was filed neither disputing or accepting that Claimant was injured during \nthe course and scope of employment.  On August 14, 2025, a Form AR-C was filed by Claimants \nattorney, C. Michal White, purporting that Claimant injured her upper extremity and ribs in the \ncourse and scope of her employment.  \nOn December 15, 2025, a prehearing telephone conference was held and subsequent order \nfiled on December 16, 2025, setting a full hearing for February 25, 2026, in Batesville, Arkansas. \nOn February 17, 2026, Claimant’s counsel advised the Commission, via email, that the Claimant \nwas  diagnosed  with cancer  three  weeks prior  and  passed  away.  Judge  Kennedy cancelled  the \nhearing and returned the claim to general files.  \nRespondents  filed  a  motion  to  dismiss  on March  4,  2026,  for,  as  I  interpret, due  to \nClaimant’s sudden death she is no longer able to prosecute her claim. The Claimant’s counsel was \nsent, on March 5, 2026, notice of the Motion to Dismiss, via email. Claimant’s counsel, via email \nand in person at the hearing, agreed with the dismissal due to his client’s unexpected death. Thus, \nin  accordance  with  applicable  Arkansas  law,  the  Claimant’s  counsel was emailed  notice  of \nRespondents’ Motion to Dismiss hearing date, a date he agreed to, on March 5, 2026. The hearing \nwas scheduled for March 17, 2026. \n \n \n \n\nWHITLOCK, AWCC No. H400680 \n \n3 \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 \n2. The Claimant and Respondents both had reasonable notice of the March 17, 2026, \nhearing. \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. Claimant’s counsel \nparticipated in setting a date for the Motion hearing and accepted service, via email, and was  \n \n\nWHITLOCK, AWCC No. H400680 \n \n4 \n \npresent  at  the  hearing. Thus,  I  find  by  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  the  Claimant  did \nreceive reasonable notice of this motion to dismiss hearing.  \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 unexpectedly \ndied due to cancer. Due to this unfortunate situation, she, along with her counsel, are no longer \nable  to  prosecute this  claim. Therefore,  I  do  find  by  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that \nClaimant is unable to further prosecute her claim due to her untimely death. Thus, Respondents’ \nMotion to Dismiss should be granted. \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. H400680 SHEILA WHITLOCK, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT B & B OIL CO., INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT BRIDGEFIELD EMPLOYERS INS. CO., CARRIER RESPONDENT SUMMIT CONSULTING, LLC, TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 16, 2025 Hearing conducted on Friday, March 17, 2026, before the ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:30:03.454Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H400680-2026-04-16","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Whitlock_Sheila_H400680_20260416.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}