{"id":"alj-H502464-2026-02-05","awcc_number":"H502464","decision_date":"2026-02-05","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Salvador Gonzales","employer_name":"All Seasons Roofing Co","title":"GONZALES VS. ALL SEASONS ROOFING CO. AWCC# H502464 February 05, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:7","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Gonzales_Salvador_H502464_20260205.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Gonzales_Salvador_H502464_20260205.pdf","text_length":8221,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H502464 \n \n \nSALVADOR GONZALES, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nALL SEASONS ROOFING CO., \nEMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nTRANSPORATION INS. CO., \nCARRIER RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED FEBRUARY 5, 2026 \n \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on February 5, 2026, in Little \nRock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se, not appearing. \n \nRespondents represented  by  Mr. Lee  J.  Muldrow,  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 February  5,  2026,  in Little \nRock,  Arkansas.    No  testimony  was  taken  in  the  case.    Claimant,  who  according  to \nCommission records is pro se, failed to appear at the hearing.  Admitted into evidence \nwas Commission Exhibit 1, pleadings, correspondence and forms related to this claim, \nconsisting of 21 pages.  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\nGONZALES – H502464 \n \n2 \n \n The record reflects the following procedural history: \n Per the initial and amended First Reports of Injury or Illness, filed on April 29 and \nMay 2, 2025, respectively, Claimant purportedly suffered an injury to his foot at work on \nMarch  30,  2025.   According  to  the  Form  AR-2  that  was  filed  on May  5,  2025, \nRespondents controverted the claim in its entirety. \n On April  22,  2025,  through  then-counsel Mark  Alan  Peoples,  Claimant  filed  a \nForm AR-C.  Therein, he alleged that his client injured his right foot in a “work accident” \nthat allegedly took place on March 20, 2025.  The boxes on the form were checked to \nindicate  that   Claimant   was   seeking   all   manner   of   initial benefits.  In  an   email \naccompanying this filing, Peoples stated that he was “not asking for a hearing at this \ntime.”  In  correspondence  to  the  Commission  received  on  May  2,  2025, Respondents \nreiterated  that  they  were  controverting  the  claim.  Respondents’ counsel entered his \nappearance before the Commission on May 7, 2025. \n In an email to the Commission sent on August 27, 2025, Respondents stated that \nthe claim had been settled.  A joint petition was filed.  However, because the University \nof  Arkansas  for  Medical  Sciences  requested  payment  for  their  treatment  of  Claimant, \nand  agreement  among  the  parties  could  not  be  reached  to  provide  for  this,  the  joint \npetition  was  withdrawn.   The file was returned to the Commission’s general files on \nSeptember 29, 2025.  On October 20, 2025, Peoples moved to withdraw from the case.  \nIn  an  Order  entered  on November  19,  2025,  the  Full  Commission  granted  the  motion \nunder AWCC Advisory 2003-2. \n\nGONZALES – H502464 \n \n3 \n \n The  record  reflects  that  nothing  further  took  place  on  the  claim  until November \n25,  2025.    On  that  date,  Respondents  filed  the  instant  motion and  brief  in  support \nthereof,  asking  for  dismissal  of  the  claim  under AWCC  R.  099.13  (now  codified  as 11 \nC.A.R.  §  25-110(d)) and  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-702(a)(4) (Repl.  2012) due  to \nClaimant’s alleged failure to,  inter  alia, make  a  bona  fide  hearing  request  within  six \nmonths  of  the  filing  of  the  Form  AR-C.   The  file  was  assigned  to  me  on December  1, \n2025; and on December 2, 2025, my office wrote Claimant, asking for a response to the \nmotion within 20 days.  The letter was sent by certified and first-class mail to the Little \nRock, Arkansas address  of  Claimant  listed  in  the  file  and on his Form  AR-C.   The \ncertified letter was returned to the Commission, unclaimed, on January 2, 2026; but the \nfirst-class mailing was not returned.  However, no response from him to the motion was \nforthcoming.    On December 31,  2025, a  hearing  on  the  Motion  to  Dismiss  was \nscheduled  for February 5,  2026,  at  12:00 p.m.  at  the Commission  in  Little  Rock.    The \nNotice of  Hearing was  sent  to  Claimant  via  first-class  and  certified  mail  to  the same \naddress in Little  Rock as  before.   In  this  instance,  the certified  letter was  claimed on \nJanuary 7, 2026, by someone with an illegible signature; and as before, the one sent by \nfirst-class mail was not returned. \n The  hearing  on  the  Motion  to  Dismiss  proceeded  as  scheduled  on February 5, \n2026.    Again,  Claimant  failed  to  appear  at  the  hearing.    But  Respondents  appeared \nthrough counsel and argued for dismissal under the aforementioned authorities. \n\nGONZALES – H502464 \n \n4 \n \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After  reviewing  the  record  as  a  whole,  to  include  documents  and  other  matters \nproperly before the Commission, the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law \nare hereby made in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over \nthis matter. \n2. The parties were provided reasonable notice of the Motion to Dismiss and \nof the hearing thereon. \n3. The  evidence  preponderates  that  Claimant  has  failed  to  prosecute  his \nclaim under 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d). \n4. The  Motion  to  Dismiss  is  hereby  granted;  this  claim  is  hereby  dismissed \nwithout prejudice under 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d). \nIII.  DISCUSSION \n 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d) reads: \nUpon  meritorious  application  to  the  Commission  from  either  party  in  an \naction  pending  before  the  Commission,  requesting  that  the  claim  be \ndismissed   for   want   of   prosecution,   the   Commission   may,   upon \nreasonable  notice  to  all  parties,  enter  an  order  dismissing  the  claim  for \nwant of prosecution. \n \nSee generally Johnson v. Triple T Foods, 55 Ark. App. 83, 85, 929 S.W.2d 730 (1996). \n As the moving party, Respondents under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(3) (Repl. \n2012) must prove their entitlement to the relief requested—dismissal of the claim—by a \npreponderance  of  the  evidence.    This  standard  means  the  evidence  having  greater \n\nGONZALES – H502464 \n \n5 \n \nweight or convincing force.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 S.W.3d 415; Smith v. \nMagnet Cove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (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) Claimant \nhas  failed  to  pursue  his claim  because  he  has  taken  no  further  action  in  pursuit  of  it \n(including  appearing  at  the February  5,  2026,  hearing  to  argue  against  its  dismissal) \nsince his file was returned to the Commission’s general files on September 29,  2025.  \nThus,  the  evidence  preponderates  that  dismissal  is  warranted  under § 25-110(d).  \nBecause of this finding, it is unnecessary to address the application of Ark. Code Ann. § \n11-9-702(a)(4) (Repl. 2012). \n That leaves the question of whether the dismissal of the claim should be with or \nwithout  prejudice.    The  Commission  possesses  the  authority  to  dismiss  claims  with \nprejudice.  Loosey v. Osmose Wood Preserving Co., 23 Ark. App. 137, 744 S.W.2d 402 \n(1988).    The  Commission  and  the  appellate  courts  have  expressed  a  preference  for \ndismissals without  prejudice.   See Professional  Adjustment  Bureau  v.  Strong,  75  Ark. \n249,  629  S.W.2d  284  (1982)).    Respondents  at  the  hearing  asked  for  a  dismissal \nwithout prejudice.  I agree and find that the dismissal of this claim should be and hereby \nis entered without prejudice.\n1\n \n \n \n1\n“A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ allows a new [claim] to be brought on the same \ncause of action.”  BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 825 (abridged 5\nth\n ed. 1983). \n\nGONZALES – H502464 \n \n6 \n \nIV.  CONCLUSION \n In accordance with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, \nthis claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice. \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. H502464 SALVADOR GONZALES, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ALL SEASONS ROOFING CO., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TRANSPORATION INS. CO., CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 5, 2026 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on February 5, 2026, in Little Rock, ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:31:45.723Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H502464-2026-02-05","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Gonzales_Salvador_H502464_20260205.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}