{"id":"alj-H405370-2025-04-30","awcc_number":"H405370","decision_date":"2025-04-30","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Pierre Mead","employer_name":"City Of Little Rock","title":"MEAD VS. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK AWCC# H405370 April 30, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MEAD_PIERRE_H405370_20250430.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"MEAD_PIERRE_H405370_20250430.pdf","text_length":5639,"full_text":"1 \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H405370 \n \nPIERRE MEAD, \nEMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nCITY OF LITTLE ROCK, \nEMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nCITY OF LITTLE ROCK/ \nRISK MG’T RESOURCES, INC. \nCARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED APRIL 30, 2025, GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO \nDISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE \n \n \nHearing conducted on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission (the Commission), Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mike Pickens, in Little Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nThe claimant, Mr. Pierre Mead, pro se, of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, failed and/or \nrefused to appear at the hearing. \n \nThe respondents were represented by the Honorable Melissa Wood, Worley, Wood & Parrish, \nLittle Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A hearing was conducted on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, to determine whether this claim \nshould be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(a)(4) (2025 Lexis \nReplacement) and Commission Rule 099.13 (2025 Lexis Replacement). \n The claimant initially was represented by counsel, Mr. Mark Peoples of The Peoples Law \nFirm of Little Rock, in this claim. By unanimous Full Commission order issued and filed on \nOctober 31, 2024, the Commission granted the claimant’s attorney’s motion to be dismissed as the \nclaimant’s attorney of record. (Respondents’ Exhibit 1 at 7). \n\nPierre Mead, AWCC No. H405370 \n2 \n \n Thereafter, on February 21, 2025, the respondents filed with the Commission a motion to \ndismiss this claim without prejudice (MTD). (RX1 at 8-9). Pursuant to the applicable law the \nCommission provided the claimant due and legal notice of both the respondents’ MTD as well as \nnotice of the subject hearing, which he received via the United States Postal Service (USPS), \nCertified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. (Commission’s Exhibit 1). The claimant failed and/or \nrefused to respond to the respondents’ motion in any way, and he failed and/or refused to appear \nat the subject hearing. (RX1 at 10-11; 1-11). \n The record herein consists of the hearing transcript and any and all exhibits contained therein \nand attached thereto. \nDISCUSSION \n Consistent with Ark. Code Ann.§ 11-9-702(a)(4) (2024 Lexis Replacement), as well as our \ncourt of appeals’ ruling in Dillard vs. Benton County Sheriff’s Office, 87 Ark. App. 379, 192 \nS.W.3d 287 (Ark. App. 2004), the Commission scheduled and conducted a hearing on the \nclaimant’s voluntary MTD. Rather than recite a detailed analysis of the record, suffice it to say the \npreponderance of the evidence introduced at the hearing and contained in the record conclusively \nreveals the claimant has neither taken any steps to pursue his claim, nor has he requested a hearing \non his claim within the last six (6) months. Also, respondents’ counsel advised the court that when \nshe took the claimant’s discovery deposition in October 2024, he testified he had in fact returned \nto work for the respondent-employer herein, the City of Little Rock. \n Therefore, after a thorough consideration of the issues at bar, the applicable law as applied to \nthe facts of this claim, and other relevant matters of record including the representations of credible \ncounsel, I hereby make the following: \n \n\nPierre Mead, AWCC No. H405370 \n3 \n \n \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. \n \n2. After having received due and legal notice of the respondents’ MTD with or without \nprejudice and brief in support thereof filed with the Commission on February 21, 2025, as \nwell as notice of the subject hearing date, time, and place, the claimant failed and/or refused \nto respond to the respondents’ MTD in any way, and he failed and/or refused to appear at \nthe subject hearing. \n \n3. The claimant has failed and/or refused to either prosecute his claim, or to request a hearing \non his claim within the last six (6) months. \n \n4. Therefore, the unrebutted preponderance of the evidence compels the decision the \nrespondents’ MTD without prejudice filed February 21, 2025, should be and hereby is \nGRANTED; and this claim hereby is dismissed without prejudice to its refiling pursuant \nto the deadlines prescribed by Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-9-702(a) and (b), and \nCommission Rule 099.13. \n \n If they have not already done so, the respondents hereby are ordered to pay the court \nreporter’s invoice within twenty (20) days of their receipt thereof. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n____________________________ \n Mike Pickens \n Administrative Law Judge \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMP/mp \n \n \n \n\nPierre Mead, AWCC No. H405370 \n4","preview":"1 BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H405370 PIERRE MEAD, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT CITY OF LITTLE ROCK/ RISK MG’T RESOURCES, INC. CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 30, 2025, GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:42:18.215Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H405370-2025-04-30","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MEAD_PIERRE_H405370_20250430.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}