{"id":"alj-H500803-2025-10-17","awcc_number":"H500803","decision_date":"2025-10-17","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Verlencia Gatewood","employer_name":"Trinity Rail Maintenance Svcs","title":"GATEWOOD VS. TRINITY RAIL MAINTENANCE SVCS. AWCC# H500803 October 20, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:6","denied:2"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Gatewood_Verlencia_H500803_20251017.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Gatewood_Verlencia_H500803_20251017.pdf","text_length":7803,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H500803 \n \n \nVERLENCIA GATEWOOD, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nTRINITY RAIL MAINTENANCE SVCS., \n EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nACE AMERICAN INS. CO., \n CARRIER RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED OCTOBER 20, 2025 \n \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on October 17, 2025, in \nJonesboro, Craighead County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se. \n \nRespondents represented  by  Mr. Jason  M. Ryburn,  Ryburn  Law  Firm, Attorneys \nat Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \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 October  17,  2025, in \nJonesboro,  Arkansas.    Claimant  appeared at  the  hearing and  gave  testimony.  \nAdmitted  into  evidence  was Commission Exhibit  1 (see Ark.  Code  Ann. § 11-9-\n705(a)(1) (Repl. 2012)(Commission must “conduct the hearing . . . in a manner \nwhich  best  ascertains  the  rights  of  the  parties”), forms,   pleadings,   and \ncorrespondence related to this claim, consisting of eight pages. \n\nGATEWOOD – H500803 \n \n2 \n \n The record shows the following procedural history: \n Per  the  Form  AR-C that Claimant filed on February  6,  2025,  Claimant \npurportedly suffered an injury that she described as follows: \nDeveloped a fungal infection on my feet that went up to the knees \nof  the  front of my  legs.    This  infection  came  from  the  build-up  of \nrainwater in the shop and mixed with rodent feces and tobacco spit \nfrom employees. \n \nShe  checked  the  boxes  of  the  form  to  indicate  that  she  was  seeking  medical \ntreatment, temporary total disability benefits, rehabilitation, and an attorney’s fee \n(curious in light of the fact that she was pro se).  According to the Form AR-2 that \nwas filed  on February  21,  2025, Respondents controverted  the claim in  its \nentirety. \n The record reflects that nothing further took place on the claim until August \n11, 2025.  On that date, Respondents filed the instant motion, asking for dismissal \nof the claim because Claimant “has taken no action in the past 6 months to further \nthis claim.”  The file was assigned to me on August 12, 2025; and on August 13, \n2025,  my  office wrote  Claimant,  asking  for  a  response  to  the  motion within  20 \ndays.   The  letter  was  sent  by  first  class and  certified mail  to the Jonesboro \naddress for Claimant that  was listed  in  the  file  and  on  her Form  AR-C.  The \ncertified  letter was  returned  to  the  Commission,  unclaimed, on September 9, \n2025; but the first-class letter was not returned.  On September 4, 2025, a hearing \non  the  Motion  to  Dismiss  was  scheduled  for October  17,  2025,  at 12:00 p.m.  at \nthe  Craighead  County  Courthouse  in  Jonesboro.   The  certified  mailing  of  the \n\nGATEWOOD – H500803 \n \n3 \n \nNotice of Hearing to Claimant was claimed by someone with an illegible signature; \nand the first-class mailing was not returned. \n The  hearing  took  place  as  scheduled.    Both  parties  appeared,  and \nClaimant  testified.   Respondents argued  for  dismissal  under AWCC  R.  099.13 \n(now  codified  at  11  C.A.R. § 25-110(d)) and  Ark.  Code  Ann. § 11-9-702(a)(4) \n(Repl. 2012). \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. \n2. The  parties  were  provided  reasonable  notice  of  the Motion  to \nDismiss and of the hearing thereon. \n3. Respondents  have not  proven  by  a preponderance  of the  evidence \nthat  Claimant  has  failed  to  prosecute  her claim  under 11  C.A.R. § \n25-110(d). \n4. Respondents  have not  proven  by  a preponderance  of the  evidence \nthat  this  claim  should  be  dismissed  under  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-\n702(a)(4) (Repl. 2012). \n\nGATEWOOD – H500803 \n \n4 \n \n5. The Motion to Dismiss is hereby denied. \n6. Claimant has requested a hearing on the issue of her entitlement to \ninitial benefits. \n7. This claim will proceed to a hearing on the merits. \nIII.  DISCUSSION \n 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d) 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 In turn, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(a)(4) (Repl. 2012) reads: \nIf within six (6) months after the filing of a claim for compensation no \nbona  fide  request  for  a  hearing  has  been  made  with  respect  to  the \nclaim,  the  claim may, upon  motion and  after  hearing,  be  dismissed \nwithout  prejudice  to  the  refiling  of  the  claim within  limitation  periods \nspecified in subdivisions (a)(1)-(3) of this section. \n \n(Emphasis added) \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 \n\nGATEWOOD – H500803 \n \n5 \n \nS.W.3d 415; Smith v. Magnet Cove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 \n(1947). \n A claimant’s testimony is never considered uncontroverted.  Nix  v. Wilson \nWorld  Hotel,  46  Ark.  App.  303,  879  S.W.2d  457  (1994).    The  determination  of  a \nwitness’ credibility and how much weight to accord to that person’s testimony are \nsolely up to the Commission.  White v. Gregg Agricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, \n37  S.W.3d  649  (2001).    The  Commission  must  sort  through  conflicting  evidence \nand determine the true facts.  Id.  In so doing, the Commission is not required to \nbelieve  the  testimony  of  the  claimant  or  any  other  witness,  but  may  accept  and \ntranslate  into  findings  of  fact  only  those  portions  of  the  testimony  that  it  deems \nworthy of belief.  Id. \n Claimant testified that the reason that she had not requested a hearing on \nher claim after its filing was that she was unaware that she had to do so.  She had \nmultiple contacts with the Commission’s Legal Advisor Division; but she had not \ngotten  satisfactory  answers  to  her  questions.    Claimant  requested  a  hearing  on \nher claim, in the event that it is not dismissed. \n After  consideration  of  the  evidence,  I  find  that  while  both  Claimant  and \nRespondents  were  given  reasonable  notice  of  the  motion  to  dismiss  hearing \nunder § 25-110(d), she has not yet abridged that rule.  By the same token, I find \nthat while § 11-9-702(a)(4) provides that a claim “may” (clearly intending that the \nadministrative  law  judge  has  discretion  in  the  matter)  be  dismissed  for  failure  to \n\nGATEWOOD – H500803 \n \n6 \n \nrequest a hearing within six months of the filing of the claim, dismissal is not yet \nwarranted here.  The Motion to Dismiss is thus denied. \n Prehearing  questionnaires  will  be  immediately  issued  to  the  parties;  and \nthis matter will proceed to a full hearing on the merits. \nIV.  CONCLUSION \n Based  on  the  Findings  of  Fact  and  Conclusions  of  Law  set  forth  above, \nRespondents’ Motion to Dismiss is hereby respectfully denied. \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. H500803 VERLENCIA GATEWOOD, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT TRINITY RAIL MAINTENANCE SVCS., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ACE AMERICAN INS. CO., CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED OCTOBER 20, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on October 17, 2025, in Jonesb...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:35:42.606Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H500803-2025-10-17","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Gatewood_Verlencia_H500803_20251017.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}