{"id":"alj-H406809-2025-07-25","awcc_number":"H406809","decision_date":"2025-07-25","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Garrett Greene","employer_name":"Crittenden County","title":"GREENE VS. CRITTENDEN COUNTY AWCC# H406809 July 25, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:7","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["knee"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Greene_Garrett_H406809_20250725.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Greene_Garrett_H406809_20250725.pdf","text_length":7686,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H406809 \n \n \nGARRETT L. GREENE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nCRITTENDEN COUNTY, ARKANSAS, \nSELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nAAC RISK MGMT. SVCS., \nTHIRD-PARTY ADM’R RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED JULY 25, 2025 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge  O.  Milton  Fine  II  on July  25,  2025, in \nForrest City, St. Francis 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 July  25,  2025, in \nForrest  City,  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 were Commission’s Exhibit 1 and Respondents’ Exhibit 1, \nforms, pleadings, reports, and correspondence related to this claim, consisting of \n15 and  14  pages,  respectively.   See Ark.  Code  Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(1)  (Repl. \n2012)(Commission  must  “conduct  the  hearing  .  .  .  in  a  manner  which  best \nascertains the rights of the parties”). \n\nGREENE – H406809 \n \n2 \n \n The record shows the following procedural history: \n On October 17, 2024, Claimant filed a Form AR-C.  He did not check any \nboxes to denote what type(s) of initial or additional benefits he was requesting; but \nhe alleged that the following occurred on October 9, 2024:  “conducting exercise \nduring S.R.T. tryouts while lifting an oversize tire, a pop was felt in right knee and \nfollowed with immediate pain.”  No hearing request accompanied this filing.  The \nForm  AR-1,  filed  on  October  22,  2024,  described  the  activity  in  question  as \n“Special Response Team tryouts.”  Also on October 22, 2024, Respondents filed \na Form AR-2, stating that they were accepting the claim as a medical-only one. \n Also on  October  17,  2024, Claimant requested  a  one-time  change  of \nphysician from the Commission.  Respondents on October 22, 2024, informed the \nCommission that they did not object to this.  In an Order dated October 28, 2024, \nthe  Administrator  of  the  Medical  Cost  Containment  Division  of  the  Commission \ngranted  the  request,  changing  Claimant’s  authorized  treating  physician  from \nCoast to Coast Medical Clinic to Michael Hood, M.D., and scheduling Claimant an \nappointment with Hood for November 8, 2024. \n The record reflects that nothing further took place on the claim until May 7, \n2025.  On that date, Respondents filed the instant motion, asking for dismissal of \nthe  claim under Ark.  Code  Ann. § 11-9-702  (Repl.  2012)  and AWCC  R.  099.13 \nbecause  “Claimant  has  not  sought  any  type  of  bona  fide  hearing  before  the \nWorkers’  Compensation  Commission over  the  last  six  months.”  The  file  was \n\nGREENE – H406809 \n \n3 \n \nassigned to me on May 8, 2025; and on that same date, my office wrote Claimant, \nasking  for  a  response  to  the  motion within  20  days.   The  letter  was  sent  by  first \nclass and certified mail to the West Memphis, Arkansas address for him listed in \nthe file and on his Form AR-C.  The United States Postal Service could not verify \nwhether the certified letter was claimed; but the first-class letter was not returned.  \nRegardless, no response from Claimant to the motion was forthcoming.  On May \n29, 2025, a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was scheduled for July 25, 2025, at \n12:00 p.m. at the St. Francis County Courthouse in Forrest City.  The notice was \nsent  to  Claimant  via  first-class  and  certified mail to the  same  address as  before.  \nIn this instance, someone with an illegible signature claimed the certified letter on \nJune 2, 2025; and the first-class letter was, again, not returned. \n The hearing on the Motion to Dismiss proceeded as scheduled before me.  \nAgain,  Claimant  failed  to  appear  at  the  hearing.    But  Respondents appeared \nthrough counsel and argued for dismissal under the foregoing authority. \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. \n\nGREENE – H406809 \n \n4 \n \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 \nthis claim under AWCC R. 099.13. \n4. The Motion  to Dismiss  is hereby  granted;  this claim for additional \nbenefits is hereby  dismissed without  prejudice under  AWCC  R. \n099.13. \nIII.  DISCUSSION \n AWCC R. 099.13 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\nGREENE – H406809 \n \n5 \n \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 July 25, 2025, hearing to argue against its \ndismissal)  since the filing  of  his Form  AR-C and  change-of-physician  request on \nOctober 17, 2024.  Thus, the evidence preponderates that dismissal is warranted \nunder  Rule  13.  Because  of  this  finding,  the  question  concerning  whether \ndismissal is warranted under § 11-90-702 is moot and 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 \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 for additional benefits is hereby dismissed without prejudice. \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). \n\nGREENE – H406809 \n \n6 \n \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n      ________________________________ \n      O. MILTON FINE II \n      Chief Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H406809 GARRETT L. GREENE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CRITTENDEN COUNTY, ARKANSAS, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT AAC RISK MGMT. SVCS., THIRD-PARTY ADM’R RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JULY 25, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on July 25, 202...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:38:48.331Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H406809-2025-07-25","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Greene_Garrett_H406809_20250725.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}