{"id":"alj-H405484-2025-10-03","awcc_number":"H405484","decision_date":"2025-10-03","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Brianna Gatewood","employer_name":"Family Dollar Stores, Inc","title":"GATEWOOD VS. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC. AWCC# H405484 October 03, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:7","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["ankle"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Gatewood_Brianna_H405484_20251003.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Gatewood_Brianna_H405484_20251003.pdf","text_length":7415,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. 405484 \n \nBRIANNA GATEWOOD, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nFAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC., \n EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nSAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORP., \n CARRIER 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  represented  by  Mr. Mark  Alan  Peoples,  Attorney  at  Law, Little  Rock, \nArkansas (neither appearing). \n \nRespondents represented by Ms. Carol Lockard Worley, Worley, Wood & Parrish, \nAttorneys 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 and  her \ncounsel  waived their appearance.   Admitted  into  evidence  were Commission \nExhibit  1 (see Ark.  Code  Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(1)  (Repl.  2012)(Commission  must \n“conduct the hearing . . . in a manner which best ascertains the rights of the \nparties”) and  Respondents’  Exhibit  1, forms,  pleadings,  and  correspondence \nrelated to this claim, totaling 15 and 11 pages, respectively. \n\nGATEWOOD – H405484 \n \n2 \n \n The record shows the following procedural history: \n Per the First Report of Injury or Illness filed on August 26, 2024, Claimant \npurportedly suffered an injury to her ankle at work on August 13, 2024, when she \nwas operating an electric motor hand truck and suffered a mishap.  According to \nthe  Form  AR-2  that  was filed August 27, 2024,  Respondents accepted  the  claim \nas compensable and paid medical plus indemnity benefits pursuant thereto. \n On  March 18,  2025,  through  counsel,  Claimant  filed  a  Form  AR-C.  \nTherein, she alleged that she injured her right leg and ankle in the aforementioned \naccident,  and  requested  the  full  range  of  initial  benefits.    In  correspondence \naccompanying the filing, Claimant’s counsel wrote:  “I am not asking for a hearing \nat this time.”  Respondents’ counsel entered her appearance on March 20, 2025; \nand in an email to the Commission on March 28, 2025, she reiterated the position \nthat her clients had taken in the Form AR-2. \n The  record  reflects  that  nothing  further  took  place  on  the  claim  until \nSeptember 23, 2025.  On that date, Respondents filed the instant motion, asking \nfor dismissal of the claim under 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d) (formerly AWCC R. 099.13) \nand Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702 (Repl. 2012) because “Claimant “has not sought \nany  type  of bona  fide hearing before  the  [Arkansas]  Workers’  Compensation \nCommission over  the  last six  months.”  The  file  was  assigned  to  me  on \nSeptember 25, 2025; and on September 26, 2025, my office wrote Claimant and \nher  counsel,  asking  for  a  response  to  the  motion within  20  days.   Her  counsel \n\nGATEWOOD – H405484 \n \n3 \n \nresponded via email that same day:  “Claimant will not oppose dismissal provided \nit is without prejudice.  We will ask to be excused from any hearing on the motion.”    \nBased on this, a Notice of Hearing was issued that same day, setting the hearing \nfor  October  3,  2025,  at  10:30  a.m.  at  the  Craighead  County Courthouse  in \nJonesboro.  On October 1, 2025, I emailed the parties, asking if anyone objected \nto my delaying the beginning of the hearing until just before noon that same day.  \nBoth  sides  indicated no  objection,  with  Claimant’s  counsel  repeating  that  they \nwould not be coming to the hearing. \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. \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. \n\nGATEWOOD – H405484 \n \n4 \n \n3. The  evidence  preponderates  that  Claimant  has  failed  to  prosecute \nher claim under 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d). \n4. The Motion  to Dismiss  is hereby  granted;  this claim for  additional \nbenefits is hereby dismissed without prejudice under 11 C.A.R. § 25-\n110(d). \nIII.  DISCUSSION \n 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 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 her claim because she has taken no further action \n\nGATEWOOD – H405484 \n \n5 \n \nin  pursuit  of it (including  appearing in  person  and/or  through  counsel at  the \nOctober  3,  2025, hearing  to  argue  against its dismissal)  since the filing  of  her \nForm AR-C on March 18, 2025.  Thus, the evidence preponderates that dismissal \nis  warranted  under § 25-110(d).  Because  of  this  finding,  the  argument  made \nunder Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702 (Repl. 2012) 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.   Based  on \nthe  foregoing,  I agree  and find  that  the  dismissal  of  this  claim  should  be  and \nhereby is entered without prejudice.\n1\n \nIV.  CONCLUSION \n In  accordance  with  the Findings  of Fact  and Conclusions  of Law  set  forth \nabove, this 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 \nsame cause of action.”  BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 825 (abridged 5\nth\n ed. 1983).","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. 405484 BRIANNA GATEWOOD, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORP., CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED OCTOBER 3, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on October 3, 2025, in Jonesb...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:35:13.277Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H405484-2025-10-03","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Gatewood_Brianna_H405484_20251003.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}