{"id":"alj-H402969-2025-10-03","awcc_number":"H402969","decision_date":"2025-10-03","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Harry Billingsley","employer_name":"Allegis Group, Inc","title":"BILLINGSLEY VS. ALLEGIS GROUP, INC. AWCC# H402969 October 03, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:7","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["knee"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Billingsley_Harry_H402969_20251003.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Billingsley_Harry_H402969_20251003.pdf","text_length":7247,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H402969 \n \n \nHARRY L. BILLINGSLEY, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nALLEGIS GROUP, INC., \nEMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nINDEMNITY INS. CO. OF NO. AMER., \nCARRIER RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED OCTOBER 3, 2025 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge  O.  Milton  Fine  II  on October 3,  2025, in \nJonesboro, Craighead County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se, not appearing. \n \nRespondents represented by Mr. Eric Newkirk, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \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 October 3,  2025,  in \nJonesboro, Arkansas.  No testimony was taken in the case.  Claimant, who according to \nCommission records is pro se, failed to appear at the hearing.  Admitted into evidence \nwere    Commission    Exhibit    1 (see Ark.    Code    Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(1)    (Repl. \n2012)(Commission must “conduct the hearing . . . in a manner which best ascertains the \nrights of the parties”) and Respondents’ Exhibit 1, pleadings, correspondence and forms \nrelated to this claim, consisting of 17 and 19 pages, respectively. \n The record reflects the following procedural history: \n Per  the  First  Report  of  Injury  or  Illness  filed  on May  10,  2024,  Claimant \npurportedly suffered an injury to his left knee when he blacked out from heat and fell at \n\nBILLINGSLEY – H402969 \n \n2 \n \nwork on May  1,  2024.   According  to  the  Form  AR-2  that  was  filed  on May  10,  2024, \nRespondents accepted the  claim as compensable  and  paid  medical  and  indemnity \nbenefits pursuant thereto. \n On May 6, 2024, through then-counsel Mark Alan Peoples, Claimant filed a Form \nAR-C.  Therein, he alleged that his client injured his right knee in a “work accident” that \nallegedly took  place on  May  1,  2024.   No  boxes  were  checked  on  the form  to  indicate \nwhat initial and/or additional benefits that Claimant was seeking. \n In  an email  to  the  Commission  sent  on  September  1,  2024, Peoples moved  to \nwithdraw  from  the  case.    In  an  Order  entered  on September  25,  2024,  the  Full \nCommission granted the motion under AWCC Advisory 2003-2. \n The  record  reflects  that  nothing  further  took  place  on  the  claim  until July 22, \n2025.   On that date, Respondents filed  the instant motion and brief  in  support  thereof, \nasking  for  dismissal of  the  claim  under  AWCC  R.  099.13 (now  codified  at 11  C.A.R.  § \n25-110(d)) and  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-702(d) (Repl.  2012).   The  file  was  assigned  to \nme  on  July  23,  2025;  and  on  that  same  date,  my  office  wrote  Claimant,  asking  for  a \nresponse to the motion within 20 days.  The letter that was sent by first class mail to the \nMemphis, Tennessee address of Claimant listed in the file and on his Form AR-C was \nnot  returned.   However,  no  response  from him to  the  motion  was  forthcoming.    On \nAugust  21,  2025, a  hearing  on  the  Motion  to  Dismiss  was  scheduled  for October 3, \n2024, at 12:00 p.m. at the Craighead County Courthouse in Jonesboro.  The Notice of \nHearing was  sent  to  Claimant  via  first-class  and  certified  mail  to  the same Memphis, \n\nBILLINGSLEY – H402969 \n \n3 \n \nTennessee address as before.  Someone with an illegible signature claimed the certified \nletter on August  28,  2025; and the one  sent  by  first-class mail  was  not returned to  the \nCommission. \n The  hearing  on  the  Motion  to  Dismiss  proceeded  as  scheduled  on October 3, \n2025.    Again,  Claimant  failed  to  appear  at  the  hearing.    But  Respondents  appeared \nthrough counsel and argued for dismissal under the aforementioned 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 matter. \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  his \nclaim under 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d). \n4. The Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted; this claim for additional benefits \nis hereby dismissed without prejudice under 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d). \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 \n\nBILLINGSLEY – H402969 \n \n4 \n \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  his claim  because  he  has  taken  no  further  action  in  pursuit  of  it \n(including  appearing  at  the October 3,  2025,  hearing  to  argue  against  its  dismissal) \nsince the  filing  of  his Form  AR-C on May  6,  2024.    Thus,  the  evidence  preponderates \nthat dismissal is warranted under § 25-110(d).  Because of this finding, it is unnecessary \nto 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 \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 \n\nBILLINGSLEY – H402969 \n \n5 \n \nwithout prejudice.  I agree and find that the dismissal of this claim should be and hereby \nis entered without prejudice.\n1\n \nIV.  CONCLUSION \n In accordance with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, \nthis claim for additional benefits 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. H402969 HARRY L. BILLINGSLEY, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ALLEGIS GROUP, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT INDEMNITY INS. CO. OF NO. AMER., CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED OCTOBER 3, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on October 3, 2025, in Jonesbo...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:35:11.212Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H402969-2025-10-03","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Billingsley_Harry_H402969_20251003.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}