{"id":"alj-H407204-2026-02-02","awcc_number":"H407204","decision_date":"2026-02-02","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Sally Brown","employer_name":"Burger King Restaurants","title":"BROWN VS. BURGER KING RESTAURANTS AWCC# H407204 February 02, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:8","denied:5"],"injury_keywords":["neck","back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Brown_Sally_H407204_20260202.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Brown_Sally_H407204_20260202.pdf","text_length":8100,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H407204 \n \nSALLY BROWN, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nBURGER KING RESTAURANTS, \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \nPROVISOR INS. CO., \nCARRIER                                                                                                             RESPONDENT \n \nMEM MUTUAL INS. CO., \nTPA                                                                                                                        RESPONDENT \n \n \n \nOPINION FILED FEBRUARY 2, 2026 \n \nHearing conducted on Friday, November 14, 2025, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission  (the  Commission),  Administrative  Law  Judge (ALJ) Steven  Porch,  in Jonesboro, \nCraighead County, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant is Pro Se, of Jonesboro, Arkansas.  \n \nThe Respondents  were represented by Ms.  Karen  McKinney,  Attorney  at  Law, Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This matter comes before the Commission on a Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondents \non September  5,  2025.    A  hearing  on  the  motion  was  conducted  on November 14,  2025,  in \nJonesboro,  Arkansas.    Claimant,  according  to  Commission  file  is Pro  Se, and appeared at  the \nhearing.  \nThe Claimant worked for the Respondent/Employer as an assistant manager. The date for \nClaimant’s  alleged  injury  was  on June   19,   2024. This   incident   was   reported   to   the \nRespondent/Employer on the  same  day. Admitted  into  evidence  was Respondents’ Exhibit 1, \n\nBROWN, AWCC No. H407204 \n \n2 \n \npleadings,  and  correspondence,  consisting  of 42 pages,  and Commission  Ex. 1, pleadings, \ncorrespondence, and U.S. Mail return receipts, consisting of 11 pages, as discussed infra. \nThe  record  reflects  on November 5,  2024,  a  Form  AR-C  was  filed  by  Claimants  then-\nattorney, Greg  Giles,  purporting  that  Claimant  sustained  injuries  to  her neck  and back. On \nNovember 7, 2024, a Form AR-1 purporting that Claimant’s injuries occurred when she turned a \ncorner  and  fell  while going to  a  back  register  to  help  with  customers. On November  8,  2024, a \nForm AR-2 was filed initially accepting the claim. The Claimant went to the St. Benard’s ER on \nthe same day as the incident and was released back to work. The Claimant returned to work on \nJune 20, 2024, and continued to work until August 19, 2024, when she stopped coming to work \nand did not request any additional medical care. The Respondents stated that they will be denying \nany  claims  at  the  time  of  the  filing  of  the  form  AR-2. On January 16,  2025, Claimant’s then-\nattorney filed a motion to withdraw as Claimant’s attorney. The Claimant objected to Greg Giles \nmotion to withdraw as counsel of record on January 24, 2025. The Full Commission granted Mr. \nGile’s motion on January 29, 2025. Due to Claimant’s objection, the Full Commission reversed \ntheir withdrawal order. I have taken up the review of the withdrawal order and granted the motion \non February 18, 2024.  \nOn March 6, 2025, Claimant’s new attorney, Scott Hunter, Jr., filed a request for a hearing. \nHowever, on July 14, 2025, Claimant’s new attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel due to \na difference of opinion on the future of the claim. On July 30, 2025, the Full Commission granted \nMr. Hunter’s withdrawal motion. Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss due to Claimant’s failure \nto prosecute her claim on September 5, 2025. The Claimant was sent, on September 9, 2025, notice \nof  the  Motion  to  Dismiss, via certified  and  regular  U.S.  Mail,  to  his last  known  address.  The \ncertified motion notice was not claimed by Claimant as noted on the September 25, 2025, return \n\nBROWN, AWCC No. H407204 \n \n3 \n \nreceipt. This notice was also sent regular U.S. Mail and did not return to the Commission. Despite \nthis, the Claimant did not respond to the Motion, in writing, as required. Thus, in accordance with \napplicable Arkansas law, the Claimant was mailed due and proper legal notice of Respondents’ \nMotion to Dismiss hearing date at her current address of record via the United States Postal Service \n(USPS),  First  Class  Certified  Mail,  Return  Receipt  Requested,  and  regular  First-Class  Mail,  on \nOctober 9, 2025. The certified notice was claimed as noted by the October 20, 2025, return receipt. \nLikewise,  the  hearing  notice  sent  regular  First-Class  was  not  returned  to  the  Commission. The \nhearing took place on November 14, 2025. And as mentioned before, the Claimant did show up to \nthe hearing. \nThe Claimant argued that she has never received her file from her previous attorney and \nwants to prosecute her. The Claimant stated that she did not live at the address in the Commission’s \nfile. She provided her updated address and was admonished that it is her responsibility to keep the \nCommission apprised of changes to her contact information. \n \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After reviewing the record as a whole and other matters properly before the Commission, \nI hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012):  \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The  Claimant  and  Respondents  both  had  reasonable  notice  of  the November  14, \n2025, hearing. \n \n3. Respondents have not proven by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant \nhas  failed  to  prosecute  her claim  under A.C.A.  §11-9-702 (Repl.  2012),  and 11 \nC.A.R. §25-110(d) (formerly AWCC Rule 099.13).  \n \n\nBROWN, AWCC No. H407204 \n \n4 \n \n4. The Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be denied. \n \n \nIII.  DISCUSSION \n 11 C.A.R. §25-110(d) provides: \nUpon  meritorious  application  to  the  Commission  from  either  party  in  an  action \npending before the Commission, requesting that the claim be dismissed for want of \nprosecution, the Commission may, upon reasonable notice to all parties, enter an \norder dismissing the claim for want of prosecution. \n \nSee generally Johnson v. Triple T Foods, 55 Ark. App. 83, 85, 929 S.W.2d 730 (1996).   \nConsistent  with 11  C.A.R. §25-110(d), the  Commission  scheduled  and  conducted  a \nhearing,  with  reasonable  notice, on  the Respondents’ Motion  to Dismiss. The  certified  hearing \nnotice was claimed by Claimant, per the return postal notice bearing the October 20, 2025, date. \nThus, I find by the preponderance of the evidence that reasonable notice was given to the Claimant.  \nFurthermore, 11 C.A.R. §25-110(d) allows the Commission, upon meritorious application, \nto dismiss an action pending before it due to a want of prosecution. The Claimant alleged at the \nfull hearing that she did not receive a copy of her file from neither Scott Hunter nor Gregory Giles, \nher previous attorneys. If true, this would handicap the Claimant’s ability to prosecute her claim. \nDue to no evidence to the contrary, I find by the preponderance of the evidence that Respondents \nhave failed to prove that Claimant failed to prosecute her claim.  \nMoreover, dismissal under A.C.A. §11-9-702(a)(4) (Repl. 2012), and A.C.A. §11-9-702(d) \n(Repl.  2012) is not automatic, but discretionary. The statute uses the term “may” revealing its \ndiscretionary application. Based on the foregoing, I find the Respondents have failed to prove by \nthe preponderance of the evidence that Claimant’s claim should be dismissed pursuant to A.C.A. \n\nBROWN, AWCC No. H407204 \n \n5 \n \n§11-9-702(a)(4) (Repl. 2012), and A.C.A. §11-9-702(d) (Repl. 2012). Thus, Respondents’ Motion \nto Dismiss should be denied. \nCONCLUSION \n Based  on  the Findings  of Fact  and Conclusions  of Law set forth above, Respondents’ \nMotion to Dismiss is hereby denied, and prehearing questionnaires shall be sent to both parties. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n      _________________________________________ \n      STEVEN PORCH \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H407204 SALLY BROWN, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT BURGER KING RESTAURANTS, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT PROVISOR INS. CO., CARRIER RESPONDENT MEM MUTUAL INS. CO., TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 2, 2026 Hearing conducted on Friday, November 14, 2025, before the Arkansas Wo...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:31:31.073Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H407204-2026-02-02","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Brown_Sally_H407204_20260202.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}