{"id":"alj-H407551-2025-09-12","awcc_number":"H407551","decision_date":"2025-09-12","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Anthony Reedy","employer_name":"City Of El Dorado","title":"REEDY VS. CITY OF EL DORADO AWCC# H407551 September 12, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/REEDY_ANTHONY_H407551_20250912.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"REEDY_ANTHONY_H407551_20250912.pdf","text_length":5500,"full_text":"1 \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H407551 \n \n \nANTHONY REEDY, \nEMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nCITY OF EL DORADO, \nEMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nARKANSAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE \nWORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM/ \nARK. MUNICIPAL LEAGUE \nTYNET CORP. \nCARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT \n \n \n \nOPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 12, 2025, \nGRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE \n \n \nHearing conducted on Thursday, September 11, 2025, before the Arkansas Workers’ \nCompensation Commission (the Commission), Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mike Pickens, in \nEl Dorado, Union County, Arkansas. \n \nThe claimant, Mr. Anthony Reedy, pro se, failed and/or refused to appear at the hearing. \n \nThe respondents were represented by the Honorable Mary K. Edwards, Arkansas Municipal \nLeague, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \n \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A hearing was conducted on Thursday, August 21, 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 11 C.A.R. Section 25-110(d) (Code of AR Regulations 2025) (formerly cited \nas Commission Rule 099.13 (2025 Lexis Replacement)). \n The respondents filed a motion to dismiss this claim without prejudice for lack of prosecution \n(MTD) on June 26, 2025. (RX1 at 6-8). The claimant filed two (2) Form AR-Cs in this claim the \n\nAnthony Reedy, AWCC No. H407551 \n2 \n \nfirst on November 18, 2024, and the second on November 25, 2025), apparently alleging different \ndates of injury and requesting different benefits; but filing both Form AR-Cs under the same claim \nnumber. (Respondents’ Exhibit 1). In accordance with the applicable law the claimant was \nprovided due and legal notice of both the respondents’ MTD as well as the date, time, and place \nof the subject hearing. Thereafter, the claimant failed and/or refused to respond to the respondents’ \nmotion in any way, or to appear at the subject hearing. Upon information and belief, it appears the \nclaimant returned to work for the City of El Dorado. \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) (2025 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 \nrespondents’ 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 failed and/or refused to either actively prosecute his claim, or to request a \nhearing in the last six (6) months. \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 \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. \n \n\nAnthony Reedy, AWCC No. H407551 \n3 \n \n2. After having received due and legal notice of both the respondents’ MTD without prejudice \nfiled with the Commission on June 26, 2025, as well as due and legal notice of the date, \ntime, and place of the subject hearing, the claimant failed and/or refused to respond to the \nMTD in any way and failed and/or refused to appear at the subject hearing. \n \n3. The claimant has not requested a hearing within the last six (6) months and has taken no \nsteps to raise any issues related to or to prosecute this claim. \n \n4. Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence compels the decision the respondents’ MTD \nwithout prejudice filed June 26, 2025, should be and hereby is GRANTED; and this claim \n(including but not limited to both of the Form AR-Cs the claimant filed in November 2024) \nis dismissed without prejudice to its refiling pursuant to the deadlines prescribed by Ark. \nCode Ann. Section 11-9-702(a) and (b) and 11 C.A.R. 25-110(d) (formerly cited as \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 Mike Pickens \n Administrative Law Judge \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMP/mp \n\nAnthony Reedy, AWCC No. H407551 \n4","preview":"1 BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H407551 ANTHONY REEDY, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CITY OF EL DORADO, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM/ ARK. MUNICIPAL LEAGUE TYNET CORP. CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:36:18.233Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H407551-2025-09-12","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/REEDY_ANTHONY_H407551_20250912.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}