{"id":"alj-H402264-2026-03-17","awcc_number":"H402264","decision_date":"2026-03-17","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Stacey Myers","employer_name":"City Of Little Rock","title":"MYERS VS. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK AWCC# H402264 March 17, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:8","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Myers_Stacey_H402264_20260317.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Myers_Stacey_H402264_20260317.pdf","text_length":7186,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H402264 \n \n \nSTACEY MYERS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nCITY OF LITTLE ROCK, \nSELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nRISK MGMT. SOLUTIONS, \nTHIRD-PARTY ADM’R RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED MARCH 17, 2026 \n \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on March 17, 2026, in Little \nRock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by Mr. Mark Alan Peoples, Attorney at Law, Litle Rock, Arkansas \n(neither appearing). \n \nRespondents represented   by   Ms. Melissa   Wood,   Attorney   at   Law, Little   Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This   matter   comes  before  the   Commission   on  the   Motion   to   Dismiss   by \nRespondents.    A  hearing  on  the  motion  was  conducted  on March  17,  2026,  in Little \nRock, Arkansas.  No testimony was taken in the case.  Claimant failed to appear at the \nhearing;  and  her  counsel  waived  his  appearance.   Admitted  into  evidence  were \nCommission Exhibit  1 and  Respondents’  Exhibit  1,  pleadings,  correspondence  and \nforms  related  to  this  claim,  consisting  of one and nine pages,  respectively.   See Ark. \nCode Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(1) (Repl. 2012)(Commission must “conduct the hearing . . . in \na manner which best ascertains the rights of the parties”). \n\nMYERS – H402264 \n \n2 \n \n The record reflects the following procedural history: \n On July  15,  2025,  through  counsel,  Claimant  filed  a  Form  AR-C.    Therein, she \nalleged  that she suffered  post-traumatic stress disorder(“PTSD”)  and injured  her arm \nand upper body on March 26, 2024, when she was burned at work.  The boxes on the \nform  were  checked  to  indicate  that  Claimant  was  seeking  all  manner  of initial  and \nadditional benefits.  Per  the  Form  AR-2  that  was  filed  on  April  8,  2024,  Respondents \naccepted  injuries  to  the  shoulders,  chest,  abdomen,  and  cheek  and  paid  medical  and \nindemnity  benefits  pursuant  thereto.    Later,  in  a  letter  dated  September  5,  2025, \nRespondents  confirmed  that  they  have  accepted  as  compensable  not  only  all  of \nClaimant’s  burn  injuries,  but  her  PTSD  as  well.    Review  of  the  file  discloses  that \nClaimant has never requested a hearing on the claim. \n Nothing  further  took  place  on  the  claim  until March  2,  2026.    On  that  date, \nRespondents filed the instant motion, asking for dismissal of the claim under AWCC R. \n099.13 (now codified as 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d)) and Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702 (Repl. \n2012) due to Claimant’s alleged failure to, inter alia, make a bona fide hearing request \nwithin the  previous six  months.   The  file  was  assigned  to Administrative  Law  Judge \nJames  Kennedy on March  2,  2026;  and  on that  same  date, his office  wrote  Claimant \nand copied her counsel, asking for a response to the motion within 20 days.  Claimant’s \ncounsel that same day by email:  “I spoke with her [Claimant] and  we  do  not  oppose \ndismissal, provided it is w/o [without] prejudice.  Thanks.” \n\nMYERS – H402264 \n \n3 \n \n On March 3, 2026, a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was scheduled for March \n17,  2026,  at  11:00 a.m.  at  the Commission  in  Little  Rock.    The Notice of  Hearing was \nsent to Claimant’s counsel.  In response, counsel emailed the Commission on March 3, \nasked  to  be  excused  from  the  hearing.  I  am  interpreting  the  foregoing  as  a  waiver  of \nappearance by both Claimant and her attorney. \n The  hearing  on  the  Motion  to  Dismiss  proceeded  as  scheduled  on March  17, \n2026.    Again,  Claimant and  her  counsel failed  to  appear  at  the  hearing.    But \nRespondents   appeared   through   counsel   and   argued   for   dismissal   under   the \naforementioned authorities. \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After  reviewing  the  record  as  a  whole,  to  include  documents  and  other  matters \nproperly before the Commission, the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law \nare hereby made in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over \nthis claim. \n2. The parties were provided reasonable notice of the Motion to Dismiss and \nof the hearing thereon. \n3. The  evidence  preponderates  that  Claimant  has  failed  to  prosecute  her \nclaim under 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d). \n4. The  Motion  to  Dismiss  is  hereby  granted;  this  claim  is  hereby  dismissed \nwithout prejudice under 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d). \n\nMYERS – H402264 \n \n4 \n \nIII.  DISCUSSION \n 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d) reads: \nUpon  meritorious  application  to  the  Commission  from  either  party  in  an \naction  pending  before  the  Commission,  requesting  that  the  claim  be \ndismissed   for   want   of   prosecution,   the   Commission   may,   upon \nreasonable  notice  to  all  parties,  enter  an  order  dismissing  the  claim  for \nwant of prosecution. \n \nSee generally Johnson v. Triple T Foods, 55 Ark. App. 83, 85, 929 S.W.2d 730 (1996). \n As the moving party, Respondents under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(3) (Repl. \n2012) must prove their entitlement to the relief requested—dismissal of the claim—by a \npreponderance  of  the  evidence.    This  standard  means  the  evidence  having  greater \nweight or convincing force.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 S.W.3d 415; Smith v. \nMagnet Cove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947). \n As  shown  by  the  evidence  recounted  above,  (1)  the  parties  were  provided \nreasonable notice of the Motion to Dismiss and of the hearing thereon; and (2) Claimant \nhas  failed  to  pursue  her claim  because she  has  taken  no  further  action  in  pursuit  of  it \nsince the  filing  of  her  Form  AR-C on September  2,  2025.    Thus,  the  evidence \npreponderates that dismissal is warranted under § 25-110(d).  Because of this finding, it \nis unnecessary to address the application of Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(d) (Repl. 2012). \n That leaves the question of whether the dismissal of the claim should be with or \nwithout  prejudice.    The  Commission  possesses  the  authority  to  dismiss  claims  with \nprejudice.  Loosey v. Osmose Wood Preserving Co., 23 Ark. App. 137, 744 S.W.2d 402 \n(1988).    The  Commission  and  the  appellate  courts  have  expressed  a  preference  for \n\nMYERS – H402264 \n \n5 \n \ndismissals without  prejudice.   See Professional  Adjustment  Bureau  v.  Strong,  75  Ark. \n249,  629  S.W.2d  284  (1982)).    Respondents  at  the  hearing  asked  for  a  dismissal \nwithout prejudice; and Claimant (through counsel) indicated that his client did not object \nto this.  I agree and find that the dismissal of this claim should be and hereby is entered \nwithout prejudice.\n1\n \nIV.  CONCLUSION \n In accordance with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, \nthis claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n      ________________________________ \n      O. MILTON FINE II \n      Chief Administrative Law Judge \n \n \n1\n“A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ allows a new [claim] to be brought on the same \ncause of action.”  BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 825 (abridged 5\nth\n ed. 1983).","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H402264 STACEY MYERS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT RISK MGMT. SOLUTIONS, THIRD-PARTY ADM’R RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 17, 2026 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on March 17, 2026, in Littl...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:30:53.492Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H402264-2026-03-17","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Myers_Stacey_H402264_20260317.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}