{"id":"alj-H403441-2025-08-08","awcc_number":"H403441","decision_date":"2025-08-08","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Walter Lanigan","employer_name":"Crain Ford Of Little Rock LLC","title":"LANIGAN VS. CRAIN FORD OF LITTLE ROCK LLC AWCC# H403441 August 08, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:8","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Lanigan_Walter_H403441_20250808.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Lanigan_Walter_H403441_20250808.pdf","text_length":8110,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H403441 \n \n \nWALTER P. LANIGAN, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nCRAIN FORD OF LITTLE ROCK LLC, \nSELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nRISK MGMT. RESOURCES, \nTHIRD-PARTY ADM’R RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED AUGUST 8, 2025 \n \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on August 7, 2025, in \nLittle Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se, not 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 August  7,  2025, in \nLittle  Rock,  Arkansas.    No  testimony  was  taken  in  the  case.    Claimant,  who \naccording  to  Commission  records  is pro  se,  failed  to  appear  at  the  hearing.  \nAdmitted  into  evidence  was Respondents’ Exhibit 1, forms, pleadings, reports, \nand correspondence related to this claim, consisting of one index page and eight \nnumbered pages thereafter.  Also,  in  order  to  address  adequately  this  matter \nunder  Ark.  Code  Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(1) (Repl. 2012)(Commission must “conduct \nthe hearing . . . in a manner which best ascertains the rights of the parties”), and \nwithout   objection,   I   have   blue-backed   to   the   record   documents   from   the \n\nLANIGAN – H403441 \n \n2 \n \nCommission’s file on the claim, consisting of 16 pages.  In accordance with Sapp \nv.  Tyson  Foods,  Inc.,  2010  Ark.  App.  517,  2010  Ark.  App.  LEXIS 549,  these \ndocuments have been served on the parties in conjunction with this opinion. \n The record shows the following procedural history: \n Per  the  First  Report  of  Injury  or  Illness  filed  on May  28,  2024,  Claimant \npurportedly  suffered  an  injury  to  his right  shoulder at  work  on March  15, 2024, \nwhen he slipped and fell on a wet floor while rolling a trash can.  According to the \nForm  AR-2  that  was  filed  on June 3, 2024, Respondents  accepted  the injury  as \ncompensable and paid medical and indemnity benefits pursuant thereto. \n On September 16,   2024, through   then-counsel Mark   Alan   Peoples, \nClaimant filed  a  Form  AR-C, requesting  the  full  range  of additional  benefits and \nalleging that he actually injured both his right shoulder and upper extremity in the \naforementioned incident.  Counsel in an email accompanying this filing stated that \nhe  was  “not  asking  for  a  hearing.”   In  response, Respondents wrote  the \nCommission  on  September 17,  2024; confirming  that  they  had  accepted  both \ninjuries. \n On October 29, 2024, Peoples moved to withdraw from his representation \nof  Claimant.    In  an  Order  entered  on November  15,  2024, the  Full  Commission \ngranted the motion under AWCC Advisory 2003-2. \n The  record  reflects  that  nothing  further  took  place  on  the  claim  until May \n14, 2025.  On that date, Respondents filed the instant motion, asking for dismissal \n\nLANIGAN – H403441 \n \n3 \n \nof  the  claim under Ark.  Code  Ann. § 11-9-702(d)  (Repl.  2012)  and AWCC  R. \n099.13 (now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d)).  Therein, they argued that “[m]ore \nthan six months have passed since Claimant filed an AR-C with the Commission   \n.  .  .  [and  that  he]  has  not  sought  any  type  of  bona  fide  hearing  before  the  .  .  . \nCommission over the last six months.”  My  office wrote  Claimant on May  15, \n2025, asking for a response to the motion within 20 days.  The letter was sent by \nfirst class and certified mail to the Little Rock, Arkansas address for him listed in \nthe  file and  on his Form  AR-C.   The  certified  letter was  returned  to  the \nCommission,  unclaimed,  on June  17,  2025; but the  first-class  letter  was  not \nreturned.  Regardless, no response from Claimant to the motion was forthcoming.  \nOn June 5, 2025, a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was scheduled for July 31, \n2025, at 9:30 a.m. at the Commission in Little Rock.  Due to a conflict, the hearing \nwas rescheduled on June 10, 2025, for August 7, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. at the same \nlocation. The notices were sent to Claimant via first-class and certified mail to the \nsame address as before.  In this instance, he signed for both certified mailings—\non June 9 and 13, 2025, respectively; and the first-class letters were not returned. \n The  hearing  on  the Motion  to Dismiss  proceeded  as  scheduled.    Again, \nClaimant  failed  to  appear  at  the  hearing.    But  Respondents appeared  through \ncounsel and argued for dismissal under the foregoing authorities. \n\nLANIGAN – H403441 \n \n4 \n \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After  reviewing  the  record  as  a  whole,  to  include  documents  and  other \nmatters  properly  before  the  Commission,  the  following Findings  of Fact  and \nConclusions of Law are hereby made in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction \nover this matter. \n2. The  parties  were  provided  reasonable  notice  of  the Motion  to \nDismiss and of the hearing thereon. \n3. The  evidence  preponderates  that  Claimant  has  failed  to  prosecute \nhis claim under AWCC R. 099.13/11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d). \n4. The Motion  to Dismiss  is hereby  granted;  this claim is hereby \ndismissed without prejudice under AWCC R. 099.13/11 C.A.R. § 25-\n110(d). \nIII.  DISCUSSION \n AWCC R. 099.13/11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d) reads: \nUpon meritorious application to the Commission from either party in \nan action pending before the Commission, requesting that the claim \nbe  dismissed  for  want  of  prosecution,  the  Commission  may,  upon \nreasonable notice to all parties, enter an order dismissing the claim \nfor want of prosecution. \n \nSee  generally  Johnson  v.  Triple  T  Foods,  55  Ark.  App.  83,  85,  929  S.W.2d  730 \n(1996). \n\nLANIGAN – H403441 \n \n5 \n \n As the moving party, Respondents under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(3) \n(Repl. 2012) must prove their entitlement to the relief requested—dismissal of the \nclaim—by a preponderance of the  evidence.    This  standard  means  the  evidence \nhaving greater weight or convincing force.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 \nS.W.3d 415; Smith v. Magnet Cove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 \n(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) \nClaimant has failed to pursue his claim because he has taken no further action in \npursuit of it (including appearing at the April 24, 2025, hearing to argue against its \ndismissal) since the filing of his Form AR-C on July 16, 2024.  Thus, the evidence \npreponderates that dismissal is warranted under the above provision.  Because of \nthis finding, the argument made under § 11-9-702(d) will not be addressed. \n That  leaves  the  question  of  whether  the  dismissal  of  the  claim  should  be \nwith  or  without  prejudice.    The  Commission  possesses  the  authority  to  dismiss \nclaims  with  prejudice.   Loosey  v.  Osmose  Wood  Preserving  Co., 23  Ark.  App. \n137,  744  S.W.2d  402  (1988).    The  Commission  and  the  appellate  courts  have \nexpressed  a  preference  for  dismissals without  prejudice.   See Professional \nAdjustment   Bureau   v.   Strong,   75   Ark.   249,   629   S.W.2d   284   (1982)).  \nRespondents at the hearing asked for a dismissal without prejudice.  I agree and \n\nLANIGAN – H403441 \n \n6 \n \nfind  that  the  dismissal  of  this  claim  should  be  and  hereby  is  entered without \nprejudice.\n1\n \nIV.  CONCLUSION \n In  accordance  with  the Findings  of Fact  and Conclusions  of Law  set  forth \nabove, this 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 \nsame cause of action.”  BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 825 (abridged 5\nth\n ed. 1983).","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H403441 WALTER P. LANIGAN, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CRAIN FORD OF LITTLE ROCK LLC, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT RISK MGMT. RESOURCES, THIRD-PARTY ADM’R RESPONDENT OPINION FILED AUGUST 8, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on August 7,...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:37:12.409Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H403441-2025-08-08","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Lanigan_Walter_H403441_20250808.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}