{"id":"alj-H501116-2025-11-14","awcc_number":"H501116","decision_date":"2025-11-14","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Stephen Griggs","employer_name":"Sms Group, Inc","title":"GRIGGS VS. SMS GROUP, INC. AWCC# H501116 November 14, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:8","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Griggs_Stephen_H501116_20251114.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Griggs_Stephen_H501116_20251114.pdf","text_length":7247,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H501116 \n \n \nSTEPHEN GRIGGS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nSMS GROUP, INC., \n EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nFARMINGTON CASUALTY CO., \n CARRIER RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED NOVEMBER 14, 2025 \n \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on November 14, 2025, \nin Forrest City, St. Francis County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se, not appearing. \n \nRespondents represented by Ms. Amy C. Markham, 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 November 14, 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  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 19 pages. \n\nGRIGGS – H501116 \n \n2 \n \n The record shows the following procedural history: \n Per the First Report of Injury or Illness that was filed on February 20, 2025, \n2025,  Claimant  purportedly  suffered an  injury  to  his  lower  back at  work  on \nDecember  24,  2024,  when he  was  lifting  and  sorting  large  and  heavy  braided \nhoses.  According  to  the  Form  AR-2  that  was filed  on February 20,  2025, \nRespondents controverted  the claim in  its  entirety.  Their  counsel  entered  her \nappearance on February 22, 2025. \n On February  28,  2025, through  then-counsel Laura  Beth  York, Claimant \nfiled a Form AR-C.  Therein, he requested the full range of additional benefits in \nconnection  with  his  alleged  lower  back injury.   No  hearing  request  accompanied \nthis filing.  In response thereto, Respondents’ counsel notified the Commission by \nletter on March 7, 2025, that her clients’ position had not changed. \n York moved  to  withdraw  from  her representation  of  Claimant  on June  26, \n2025.    In  an  Order  entered  on July  23,  2025,  the  Full  Commission  granted  the \nmotion pursuant to AWCC Advisory 2003-2. \n The  record  reflects  that  nothing  further  took  place  on  the  claim  until \nSeptember  2,  2025.    On  that  date, Respondents filed  the  instant  motion,  asking \nfor  dismissal  of  the  claim dismissal  under  AWCC  R.  099.13  (now  codified  at  11 \nC.A.R. § 25-110(d)) because Claimant had not made a bona fide hearing request \non the claim since its filing.  The file was assigned to me on September 3, 2025; \nand  on  that  same  date,  my  office wrote  Claimant,  asking  for  a  response  to  the \n\nGRIGGS – H501116 \n \n3 \n \nmotion within 20 days.  The letter was sent by first class and certified mail to the \nCherry Valley address for Claimant that was listed in the file and on his Form AR-\nC.  Someone   with  an   illegible   signature   signed   for   the   certified   letter   on \nSeptember  6, 2025; and the  first-class  letter  was  not  returned.   Regardless,  no \nresponse to the motion was forthcoming.  On September 25, 2025, a hearing on \nthe Motion to Dismiss was scheduled for November 14, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. at the \nSt. Francis County Courthouse in Forrest City.  The certified mailing of the Notice \nof  Hearing  to  Claimant was  returned  to  the  Commission, refused,  on October 3, \n2025; but the first-class mailing was not returned. \n The  hearing  on  the Motion  to Dismiss  proceeded  as  scheduled.    Again, \nClaimant  failed  to  appear  at  the  hearing.    But  Respondents appeared  through \ncounsel and argued for dismissal under the above-cited provision. \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. \n\nGRIGGS – H501116 \n \n4 \n \n3. The  evidence  preponderates  that  Claimant  has  failed  to  prosecute \nhis claim under 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d). \n4. The Motion  to Dismiss  is hereby  granted;  this claim is hereby \ndismissed without 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 \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 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 steps to pursue \nit  (including  appearing  at  the November  14,  2025,  hearing to  argue  against  its \n\nGRIGGS – H501116 \n \n5 \n \ndismissal)  since  the  filing  of  his  Form  AR-C  on February  28,  2025.   Thus,  the \nevidence preponderates that dismissal of the claim is warranted under 11 C.A.R. \n§ 25-110(d). \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.   Based  on \nthe  foregoing,  I agree  and find  that  the  dismissal  of  this  claim  should  be  and \nhereby is entered without prejudice.\n1\n \nIV.  CONCLUSION \n In  accordance  with  the Findings  of Fact  and Conclusions  of Law  set  forth \nabove, this claim for initial 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 \nsame cause of action.”  BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 825 (abridged 5\nth\n ed. 1983).","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H501116 STEPHEN GRIGGS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT SMS GROUP, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT FARMINGTON CASUALTY CO., CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 14, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on November 14, 2025, in Forrest City, St. Fra...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:34:31.281Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H501116-2025-11-14","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Griggs_Stephen_H501116_20251114.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}