{"id":"alj-H405788-2026-01-06","awcc_number":"H405788","decision_date":"2026-01-06","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Blaine Wilson","employer_name":"Greenbriar Co., Inc","title":"WILSON VS. GREENBRIAR CO., INC. AWCC# H405788 January 06, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:8","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","neck"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Wilson_Blaine_H405788_20260106.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Wilson_Blaine_H405788_20260106.pdf","text_length":8029,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H405788 \n \n \nBLAINE WILSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nGREENBRIAR CO., INC., \nEMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nSENTRY CASUALTY. CO., \nCARRIER RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED JANUARY 6, 2026 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge  O.  Milton  Fine  II  on January  2,  2026, in \nJonesboro, Craighead County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se, not appearing. \n \nRespondents represented  by  Mr. Jarrod  S.  Parrish,  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 January  2,  2026,  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 \nwas Respondents’ Exhibit 1, pleadings, correspondence and forms related to this claim, \nconsisting of one index page and nine numbered pages thereafter.  In addition, in order \nto  address  adequately  this  matter  under  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  without  objection,  I  have  blue-backed  to   the   record \ndocuments  from  the  Commission’s  file  on  the  claim,  consisting  of 13 pages.    In \n\nWILSON – H405788 \n \n2 \n \naccordance with Sapp v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2010 Ark. App. 517, 2010 Ark. App. LEXIS \n549, these documents have been served on the parties in conjunction with this opinion. \n The record reflects the following procedural history: \n Per  the  First  Report  of  Injury  or  Illness  filed  on September  6,  2024,  Claimant \npurportedly  suffered  an  injury  to  his left  shoulder  and  forearm when  he fell  while \ndescending a ladder at work on June 11, 2024.  According to the Form AR-2 that was \nalso filed on September 6, 2024, Respondents accepted the claim as compensable and \npaid medical and indemnity benefits pursuant thereto. \n On November 19, 2024, through then-counsel Mark Alan Peoples, Claimant filed \na  Form  AR-C.    Therein,  he  alleged  that his client injured  his head,  neck,  and  left \nshoulder in a “work accident” that allegedly took place on June 11, 2024.  All boxes on \nthe  form  were  checked  to  indicate  that  Claimant  was  seeking  all  manner  of  initial (but \nnot  additional) benefits.  In  an  email  accompanying  this  filing,  Peoples  stated  that  he \nwas “not asking for a hearing at this time.”  Respondents’ counsel made an entry of \nappearance on December 9, 2024. \n In  an email  to  the  Commission  sent  on January  18,  2025, Peoples moved  to \nwithdraw  from  the  case.    In  an  Order  entered  on February  12,  2025,  the  Full \nCommission granted the motion under AWCC Advisory 2003-2. \n The record reflects that nothing further took place on the claim until October 28, \n2025.   On that date, Respondents filed  the instant motion and brief  in  support  thereof, \nasking for dismissal of the claim under 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d)) and Ark. Code Ann. § 11-\n\nWILSON – H405788 \n \n3 \n \n9-702  (Repl.  2012) due  to  Claimant’s  alleged  failure  to  make  a  bona  fide  hearing \nrequest within six months of the filing of the Form AR-C.  The file was assigned to me \non October  29,  2025;  and  on  that  same  date,  my  office  wrote  Claimant,  asking  for  a \nresponse  to the motion  within  20  days.    The  letter  was  sent  by certified  and first-class \nmail to the Paragould, Arkansas address of Claimant listed in the file and on his Form \nAR-C.  A “Mary Blount” signed for the certified letter on November 3, 2025; and the first-\nclass  mailing was  not  returned.   However,  no  response  from him to  the  motion  was \nforthcoming.    On November  19,  2025, a  hearing  on  the  Motion  to  Dismiss  was \nscheduled  for January  2,  2026,  at  1:00 p.m.  at  the Craighead County  Courthouse  in \nJonesboro.  The Notice of Hearing was sent to Claimant via first-class and certified mail \nto  the same address in  Paragould as  before.   In  this  instance,  the certified  letter was \nreturned  to  the  Commission,  unclaimed, on December 28,  2025; but the  one  sent  by \nfirst-class mail was not returned. \n The  hearing  on  the  Motion  to  Dismiss  proceeded  as  scheduled  on January  2, \n2026.    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): \n\nWILSON – H405788 \n \n4 \n \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  is  hereby  dismissed \nwithout 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 \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 \n\nWILSON – H405788 \n \n5 \n \nhas  failed  to  pursue  his claim  because  he  has  taken  no  further  action  in  pursuit  of  it \n(including  appearing  at  the January  2,  2026,  hearing  to  argue  against  its  dismissal) \nsince the  filing  of  his Form  AR-C on November  19,  2024.    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 \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.  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 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. H405788 BLAINE WILSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT GREENBRIAR CO., INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT SENTRY CASUALTY. CO., CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JANUARY 6, 2026 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on January 2, 2026, in Jonesboro, Craighead Cou...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:32:30.117Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H405788-2026-01-06","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Wilson_Blaine_H405788_20260106.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}