{"id":"alj-H408118-2026-03-26","awcc_number":"H408118","decision_date":"2026-03-26","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Alexzander Williams","employer_name":"Amazon Com Inc","title":"WILLIAMS VS. AMAZON COM INC. AWCC# H408118 March 26, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:7","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Williams_Alexzander_H408118_20260326.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Williams_Alexzander_H408118_20260326.pdf","text_length":7745,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H408118 \n \n \nALEXZANDER WILLIAMS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nAMAZON COM INC., \nEMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nAMERICAN ZURICH INS. CO., \nCARRIER RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED MARCH 26, 2026 \n \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on March 26, 2026, in Little \nRock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se, not appearing. \n \nRespondents represented  by  Mr. Michael  C.  Stiles,  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 March 26,  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 \nwere Commission Exhibit    1 (see 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  Respondents’  Exhibit  1, pleadings,  correspondence  and \nforms related to this claim, consisting of 20 and 11 pages, respectively. \n\nWILLIAMS – H408118 \n \n2 \n \n The record reflects the following procedural history: \n Per  the  First  Report  of  Injury  or  Illness  filed  on December  17,  2024,  Claimant \npurportedly suffered an injury to his foot on December 4, 2024, in the form of dermatitis.  \nAccording  to  the  Form  AR-2  that  was also filed  on December  17,  2024,  Respondents \ncontroverted the claim. \n On July 2, 2025, through then-counsel Mark Alan Peoples, Claimant filed a Form \nAR-C.  The boxes on the form were checked to indicate that Claimant was seeking all \nmanner  of  initial  benefits in  connection  with  his alleged left  foot injury.  In an email \naccompanying this filing, Peoples stated that he was “not asking for a hearing at  this \ntime”;  but  he  did  request  a  change  of  physician  on  his client’s behalf.  Respondents \nemailed the  Commission on  July 7,  2025, stating  that  their “[p]osition hasn’t changed.”  \nRespondents’ counsel reiterated this in his email to the Commission on July 10, 2025, \nwherein  he  also  made  his  entry  of  appearance.  Two  days  later,  on July  12,  2025, \nRespondents’ counsel objected to the change-of-physician request. \n In  an email  to  the  Commission  sent  on September  7,  2025, Peoples moved  to \nwithdraw from the case.  In an Order entered on October 1, 2025, the Full Commission \ngranted the motion under AWCC Advisory 2003-2. \n The record reflects that nothing further took place on the claim until January 20, \n2026.    On  that  date,  Respondents  filed  the  instant  motion,  asking  for  dismissal  of  the \nclaim  under Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-702(a)(4)  &  (d)  (Repl.  2012)  and 11  C.A.R.  §  25-\n110(d) due Claimant’s failure to request a hearing in this matter.  The file was assigned \n\nWILLIAMS – H408118 \n \n3 \n \nto me on January 21, 2026; and on that same date, my office wrote Claimant, asking for \na response to the motion within 20 days.  The letter was sent by certified and first-class \nmail to the North Little Rock, Arkansas address of Claimant listed in the file and on his \nForm  AR-C.   The  certified  letter was  returned  to  the  Commission,  unclaimed, on \nFebruary 12, 2026; but the first-class mailing was not returned.  However, no response \nfrom him to  the  motion  was  forthcoming.    On February  11,  2026, a  hearing  on  the \nMotion to Dismiss was scheduled for March 26, 2026, at 10:30 a.m. at the Commission \nin  Little  Rock.   The Notice of  Hearing was  sent  to  Claimant  via first-class  and  certified \nmail  to  the same address in North  Little  Rock as  before.   In  this  instance,  the certified \nletter went unclaimed and was returned to the Commission on March 4, 2026; but once \nagain, the notice sent by first-class mail was not returned. \n The  hearing  on  the  Motion  to  Dismiss  proceeded  as  scheduled  on March 26, \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): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over \nthis matter. \n\nWILLIAMS – H408118 \n \n4 \n \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) (formerly AWCC R. 099.13) 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 \nhas  failed  to  pursue  his claim  because  he  has  taken  no  further  action  in  pursuit  of  it \n(including appearing at the March 26, 2026, hearing to argue against its dismissal) since \n\nWILLIAMS – H408118 \n \n5 \n \nthe  filing  of  his Form  AR-C on July 2,  2025.    Thus,  the  evidence  preponderates  that \ndismissal is warranted under § 25-110(d).  Because of this finding, the arguments made \nunder  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-702(a)(4)  &  (d)  (Repl.  2012)  are  moot  and  will  not  be \naddressed. \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 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 same \ncause of action.”  BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 825 (abridged 5\nth\n ed. 1983).","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H408118 ALEXZANDER WILLIAMS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT AMAZON COM INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT AMERICAN ZURICH INS. CO., CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 26, 2026 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on March 26, 2026, in Little Rock, Pulaski ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:31:18.527Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H408118-2026-03-26","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Williams_Alexzander_H408118_20260326.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}