{"id":"alj-H501581-2026-03-05","awcc_number":"H501581","decision_date":"2026-03-05","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Taiquitha Robins","employer_name":"Arkansas Baptist College","title":"ROBINS VS. ARKANSAS BAPTIST COLLEGE AWCC# H501581 March 05, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:7","granted:2","denied:2"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/ROBINS_TAIQUITHA_H501581_20260305.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"ROBINS_TAIQUITHA_H501581_20260305.pdf","text_length":4008,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nAWCC FILE No H501581 \n \nTAIQUITHA ROBINS, EMPLOYEE        CLAIMANT \n \nARKANSAS BAPTIST COLLEGE, EMPLOYER                     RESPONDENT \n \nBRIDGEFIELD CASUALTY INS. CO./SUMMIT CONSULTING, \nCARRIER/TPA                    RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED 5 MARCH 2026 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (“the Commission”) \nAdministrative Law Judge JayO. Howe on 7 January 2026 in Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nThe pro se claimant failed to appear. \n \nThe Ryburn Law Firm, Mr. Zachary F. Ryburn, 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 Little \nRock, Arkansas, on 7 January 2026. This case relates to an alleged workplace injury \noccurring on 3 January 2025. The record from the hearing consists of the transcript; \nRespondents’ Exhibit No 1, their two-page Motion to Dismiss; and Commission’s Exhibit No \n1, two pages that included a Form AR-C filed by the claimant and a Postal Service delivery \nreceipt from Commission correspondence with the claimant.  \nThe record showed that the claimant filed a Form AR-C on 12 March 2025 alleging \nan injury on 3 January 2025. She stated an injury relating to stress in the workplace. The \nForm AR-C indicated that she was seeking temporary total disability and medical expenses. \nThe claim was denied in its entirety by the respondents.  \nOn 28 October 2025, the respondents requested that this claim be dismissed for the \nclaimant’s failure to prosecute his claim under the Commission Rule at 11 C.A.R. § 25-\n\nT. ROBINS- H501581 \n2 \n \n110(d). They argued that the claim had been denied at its outset and that the claimant had \nmade no effort to prosecute her case since the filing of the Form AR-C.  \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’ motion was sent in the same manner. A Postal Service delivery receipt \nevidences that the claimant received the Commission’s correspondence on 26 November \n2025. The record does not reflect any responsive filings from the claimant; and she did not \nattend the hearing to object to the dismissal of this claim. \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 7 January 2026 and presented their motion. As argued \nby the respondents at the hearing, 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d) provides for a dismissal for failure \nto prosecute an action upon application by either party and reasonable notice. As noted \nabove, notice of the respondents’ motion and notice of the scheduling of the hearing was \nprovided to the claimant. \nThe respondents argue that the claimant has failed to prosecute her claim. She has \nmade no efforts in furtherance of the same since the filing of her Form AR-C. Additionally, \n\nT. ROBINS- H501581 \n3 \n \nthe claimant has not requested a hearing on any issue in her claim. No objection was filed \nto the respondents’ motion to dismiss this claim; and the claimant did not appear at the \nhearing to resist the dismissal of her claim. Based on the evidence presented, a dismissal \nwithout 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 H501581 TAIQUITHA ROBINS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ARKANSAS BAPTIST COLLEGE, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT BRIDGEFIELD CASUALTY INS. CO./SUMMIT CONSULTING, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED 5 MARCH 2026 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (“the Comm...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:30:36.842Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H501581-2026-03-05","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/ROBINS_TAIQUITHA_H501581_20260305.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}