{"id":"alj-H501531-2025-11-20","awcc_number":"H501531","decision_date":"2025-11-20","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Quentin Jackson","employer_name":"Mcdonalds Store 26966","title":"JACKSON VS. McDONALDS STORE 26966 AWCC# H501531 November 20, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:7","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Jackson_Quentin_H501531_20251120.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Jackson_Quentin_H501531_20251120.pdf","text_length":7399,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H501531 \n \n \nQUENTIN JACKSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nMcDONALDS STORE 26966, \n SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nRISK MGMT. RESOURCES, \n THIRD-PARTY ADM’R RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED NOVEMBER 21, 2025 \n \nHearing before Chief Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on November 21, \n2025, in Jonesboro, Craighead County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se, not appearing. \n \nRespondents represented  by  Ms. Melissa  Wood,  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 21, 2025, in \nJonesboro,  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  were  Commission  Exhibit  1  and Respondents’ Exhibit 1, \npleadings,  correspondence  and  forms  related  to  this  claim,  consisting  of eleven \n(11) and  nine (9) pages (one (1) index  page  plus  eight (8) pages  of  records), \nrespectively.  See Ark.  Code  Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(1)  (Repl.  2012)(Commission \nmust “conduct the hearing . . . in a manner which best ascertains the rights of the \nparties”). \n\nJACKSON – H501531 \n \n2 \n \n The record reflects the following procedural history: \n Per  the  First  Report  of  Injury  or  Illness  filed on March 11,  2025,  Claimant \npurportedly suffered a seizure  at  work on February  27,  2025, causing  him  to  fall \nonto  the  grill  and burn  his  hands.  According  to the  Form  AR-2 that  was filed on \nMarch   12,   2025, Respondents accepted the   claim and   paid   medical   and \ntemporary total disability benefits pursuant thereto. \n On  March  20,  2025,  Claimant  filed  a  Form  AR-C.    Thereon,  he  checked \nboxes to indicated that he was seeking initial and additional benefits in the form of \npermanent partial disability benefits.  In an email to the Commission on March 26, \n2025,  Rebecca  Gwatney,  the  adjustor  on  the  claim,  confirmed that Respondents \nhad “accepted this claim as a compensable burn to Mr. Jackson’s right and left \nhand[s].” \n The  record  reflects  that  nothing  further  took  place  on  the  claim  until \nSeptember 23,   2025.      On   that   date,   Respondents’  counsel  entered  their \nappearance  and filed  the  instant  motion,  asking  for  dismissal  of  the  claim  under \n11  C.A.R. § 25-110(d)  (formerly AWCC  R.  099.13) and  Ark.  Code  Ann. § 11-9-\n702 (Repl. 2012).  The file was reassigned to me on September 25, 2025; and on \nSeptember  26,  2025,  my office  wrote  Claimant,  asking  for  a  response  to  the \nmotion within 20 days.  The letter was sent by first class and certified mail to the \nParagould, Arkansas address for Claimant listed in the file and on his Form AR-C.  \nWhile the certified letter was returned to the Commission, unclaimed, on October \n\nJACKSON – H501531 \n \n3 \n \n27,  2025, the  first-class  letter  was  not  returned.    Regardless,  no  response  from \nClaimant to the motion was forthcoming. \n On October  17,  2025,  a  hearing  on  the  Motion  to  Dismiss  was  scheduled \nfor November 21,  2025,  at  10:30  a.m.  at  the Craighead  County  Courthouse in \nJonesboro.    The  notice  was  sent  to  Claimant  via  first-class  and  certified  mail  to \nthe same address as before.  In this instance, the certified letter was claimed by \nClaimant on October 20, 2025, while the first-class letter 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 foregoing authorities. \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After  reviewing  the  record  as  a  whole,  including 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. The  evidence  preponderates  that  Claimant  has  failed  to  prosecute \nhis claim under 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d). \n\nJACKSON – H501531 \n \n4 \n \n4. The  Motion  to  Dismiss  is  hereby  granted;  this  claim  for additional \nbenefits is hereby dismissed without prejudice under 11 C.A.R. § 25-\n110(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 further action in \npursuit  of  it  (including  appearing  at  the November 21,  2025,  hearing  to  argue \nagainst its dismissal) since the filing of his Form AR-C on March 20, 2025.  Thus, \n\nJACKSON – H501531 \n \n5 \n \nthe  evidence  preponderates  that  dismissal  is  warranted  under § 25-110(d).  It  is \nso entered.  Because of this finding, the argument under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n702 (Repl. 2012) is moot and will not be addressed. \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 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 \nsame cause of action.”  BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 825 (abridged 5\nth\n ed. 1983).","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H501531 QUENTIN JACKSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT McDONALDS STORE 26966, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT RISK MGMT. RESOURCES, THIRD-PARTY ADM’R RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 21, 2025 Hearing before Chief Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on November 2...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:34:41.848Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H501531-2025-11-20","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Jackson_Quentin_H501531_20251120.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}