{"id":"alj-H501138-2025-11-14","awcc_number":"H501138","decision_date":"2025-11-14","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Dakota Perkins","employer_name":"City Of Redfield","title":"PERKINS VS. CITY OF REDFIELD AWCC# H501138 November 14, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:7","granted:2"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/PERKINS_DAKOTA_H501138_20251114.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"PERKINS_DAKOTA_H501138_20251114.pdf","text_length":3821,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nAWCC FILE No H501138 \n \nDAKOTA PERKINS, EMPLOYEE        CLAIMANT \n \nCITY OF REDFIELD, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER                   RESPONDENT \n \nARKANSAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, ADMINISTRATOR            RESPONDENT \n  \n \n \nOPINION FILED 14 NOVEMBER 2025 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (“the Commission”) \nAdministrative Law Judge JayO. Howe on 6 November 2025 in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. \n \nThe pro se claimant failed to appear. \n \nThe Arkansas Municipal League, Ms. Mary K. Edwards, appeared for the respondents. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A hearing on the respondents’ Motion to Dismiss was held on this matter in Pine \nBluff, Arkansas, on 6 November 2025. This case relates to an alleged workplace injury \noccurring on 16 November 2023. The record of the hearing consists of the transcript; \nRespondents’ Exhibit No 1, which consisted of one index page and five pages of documents; \nand Commission’s Exhibit No 1, which consisted of three pages that included a Form AR-C \nfiled on 21 February 2025 and two Postal Service delivery receipts from Commission \ncorrespondence with the claimant.  \nOn 21 February 2025, the claimant filed a Form AR-C seeking medical expenses \nrelating to an alleged injury to his right bicep. The respondents later requested that this \nclaim be dismissed under Commission Rule 099.13 (now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d)) \nand/or Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702. Their 11 September 2025 motion notes that as of the \nfiling of that motion, the claimant had not requested a hearing on any issue ripe for \nlitigation.  \n\nD. PERKINS- H501138 \n2 \n \n Notice of the respondents’ motion was sent to the claimant, consistent with \nCommission practices, via First Class Mail and Certified Mail. Notice of a hearing on the \nrespondents was sent in the same manner. Delivery confirmation receipts show that the \nclaimant received both notice letters. He did not exercise his right to appear at the hearing \nto resist the respondents’ motion. \nFINDINDGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After reviewing the record as a whole, I hereby make the following findings of fact \nand conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n 1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter. \n2. The parties were provided with reasonable notice of the Motion to Dismiss \nand the hearing on the motion. \n \n3. The evidence preponderates that the claimant has failed to prosecute his \nclaim under 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d). \n \n4. The Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted; this claim is dismissed without \nprejudice under 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d). \n \nDISCUSSION \nThe respondents appeared on 6 November 2025 and presented their motion. As \nargued by the respondents at the hearing, Commission Rule 099.13 (now 11 C.A.R. § 25-\n110(d)) provides for a dismissal for failure to prosecute an action upon application by either \nparty and reasonable notice. The claimant did not file a response to the motion or appear at \nthe hearing to argue against the dismissal of his claim.  \nThe claimant filed his Form AR-C on 21 February 2025. No filings have been made \nby the claimant since the filing of the Form AR-C; and he has failed to make a request for a \nhearing on his claim. Likewise, no objection was filed to the respondents’ motion to dismiss \nthis claim. Further, the claimant did not appear at the hearing to object to the dismissal of \nhis claim.  \n\nD. PERKINS- H501138 \n3 \n \nThe record does not reflect a request for a hearing ever being filed in this claim. \nBased on the evidence presented, a dismissal without prejudice is appropriate.  \nORDER \n The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT \nPREJUDICE. \nSO ORDERED. \n________________________________ \n       JAYO. HOWE \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWCC FILE No H501138 DAKOTA PERKINS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CITY OF REDFIELD, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED 14 NOVEMBER 2025 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (“the Commission”) Admi...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:34:33.354Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H501138-2025-11-14","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/PERKINS_DAKOTA_H501138_20251114.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}