{"id":"alj-H502820-2025-11-19","awcc_number":"H502820","decision_date":"2025-11-19","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Martin Block","employer_name":"Signature Aviation","title":"BLOCK VS. SIGNATURE AVIATION AWCC# H502820 November 19, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:3"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Block_Martin_H502820_20251119.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Block_Martin_H502820_20251119.pdf","text_length":10706,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H502820 \n \n \nMARTIN BLOCK, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nSIGNATURE AVIATION, \n EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nSTARR INDEMN. & LIAB. CO., \n CARRIER RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED NOVEMBER 19, 2025 \n \nHearing before Chief Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on November 18, \n2025, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se, not appearing. \n \nRespondents represented  by  Mr. Rick  Behring,  Jr.,  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 18, 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 was Respondents’ Exhibit 1, pleadings, correspondence \nand forms related to this claim, consisting of 10 numbered pages.  Also, in order \nto  address  adequately  this  matter  under  Ark.  Code  Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(1)  (Repl. \n2012)(Commission  must  “conduct  the  hearing  .  .  .  in  a  manner  which  best \nascertains the rights of the parties”), and without objection, I have blue-backed to \nthe record documents from the Commission’s file on the claim, consisting of nine \n\nBLOCK – H502820 \n \n2 \n \npages.  In accordance with Sapp v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2010 Ark. App. 517, 2010 \nArk.  App.  LEXIS 549,  these  documents  have  been  served  on  the  parties  in \nconjunction with this opinion. \n The record reflects the following procedural history: \n Per  the  First  Report  of  Injury  or  Illness  filed on May 6,  2025,  Claimant \npurportedly suffered an injury to one or both of his shoulders at work on April 29, \n2025, while he was operating a fuel truck.  According to the Form AR-2 that was \nfiled on May   6,  2025, Respondents controverted the   claim in   its   entirety.  \nRespondents’ counsel entered his appearance before the Commission on August \n1, 2023. \n In  an  email  to  Commission  Legal  Advisor  Michael  St.  Clair  on  June  24, \n2025, which bears the instant claim number on its subject line, Claimant wrote: \nMr. Michael, \n \nGood  afternoon  sir.    As  per  our  phone  conversation  I’d  [like]  to \nappeal the decision of denial of my workers[’] comp case.  If you \nneed anything further please reach out to me and I’ll provide it for \nyou. \n \nSincerely, \n \nMartin Block \n \n In  response  to  the  Legal  Advisor  Claimant  Questionnaire  received  by  the  \nCommission on June 26, 2025, Claimant requested mediation.  But in an email to \nthe Commission on August 15, 2025, Respondents’ counsel indicated that his \nclients  were  not  interested  in  pursuing mediation.   As  a  result,  St.  Clair  informed \n\nBLOCK – H502820 \n \n3 \n \nthe parties by email that same day that he would have the matter assigned to an \nadministrative law judge. \n The file was assigned to me on August 18, 2025.  On August 21, 2025, my \noffice  sent  preliminary  notices  and  prehearing  questionnaires  to  the  parties.    On \nSeptember  11,  2025,  my  assistant,  Catherine  Ferguson,  emailed  Claimant  to \ninform  him  that  his  completed  preliminary  notice  and  prehearing  questionnaire \nresponse were overdue.  He replied that same day: \nGood morning Ms. Ferguson, \n \nI’m  going  to  have  to  politely  pass  on  this  as  I’ve  already  been \nforced  by  [C]oncentra  to  pay  the  medical  bills  associated  with  my \nwork injury or they were going to send it to collection.  So I’m sorry \nto  say  but  going  forward  I  will  not  be  pursuing  this  matter  any \nlonger.  I’ve always thought that worker’s comp insurance  was  to \nhelp  out  when  an  employee  gets  injured  on  the  job  performing  a \nrequired task but I apparently stand very incorrect.  I’d like to take \nthe  time  to  thank  everyone  at  the  Arkansas  Workers[’] \n[C]ompensation [C]omission for their time and effort in assisting me \nbut again I’m no longer pursuing this matter. \n \nSincerely, \n \nMartin Block \n \nBased on this, the prehearing process was ended and the file was returned to the \nCommission’s general files. \n The  record  reflects  that  nothing  further  took  place  on  the  claim  until \nSeptember 16, 2025.  On that date, Respondents filed the instant motion, asking \nfor  dismissal  of  the  claim  under 11  C.A.R. § 25-110(d)  (formerly AWCC  R. \n099.13).   The  file  was  reassigned  to  me  on  September  19,  2025;  and  on  that \n\nBLOCK – H502820 \n \n4 \n \nsame date, my office wrote  Claimant, asking  for  a  response  to the  motion  within \n20  days.    The  letter  was  sent  by  first  class  and  certified  mail  to  the Bauxite, \nArkansas address that Claimant had  used  on  all  his  correspondence  with  the \nCommission.    While   the certified   letter was   returned   to   the   Commission, \nunclaimed, on October   16,   2025, the   first-class   letter   was   not   returned.  \nRegardless, no response from Claimant to the motion was forthcoming. \n On October  17,  2025,  a  hearing  on  the  Motion  to  Dismiss  was  scheduled \nfor November  18,  2025,  at  10:30  a.m.  at  the Commission  in  Little  Rock.    The \nnotice was sent to Claimant via first-class and certified mail to the same address \nas before.  In this instance, the certified letter was claimed on October 20, 2025, \nby  someone  with  an  illegible  signature,  while  the  first-class  letter  was  not \nreturned. \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 authority. \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): \n\nBLOCK – H502820 \n \n5 \n \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). \n4. The  Motion  to  Dismiss  is  hereby  granted;  this  claim  for  initial \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 \n\nBLOCK – H502820 \n \n6 \n \nS.W.3d 415; Smith v. Magnet Cove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 \n(1947). \n No  Form  AR-C  has  been  filed  in  this  case.    That  is  the  means  for  filing  a \n“formal claim.”  While a Form AR-1 was filed in this case, that does not suffice to \ninstigate a claim.  I recognize, however, that other means exist to file a claim for \ninitial benefits other than a Form AR-C.  In Cook v. Southwestern Bell Telephone \nCompany,  21  Ark.  App.  29,  727  S.W.2d  862  (1987)  the  Arkansas  Court  of \nAppeals  discussed  the  minimum  requirements  necessary  for  correspondence  to \nthe Commission to constitute a claim for additional compensation for the purpose \nof  tolling  the  applicable  Statute  of  Limitations.    There,  the  court  held  that  an \nattorney's  correspondence  notifying  the  Commission  that he  has  been employed \nto assist a claimant in connection with unpaid benefits is sufficient to state a claim \nfor  additional  compensation  where  the  correspondence  also  lists  the  claimant's \nname, the employer's name and the Commission file number.  See also Garrett v. \nSears  Roebuck  and  Company,  43  Ark.  App.  37,  858  S.W.2d  146  (1993).    My \nreview of the Commission’s file discloses a document sufficient to constitute a \nclaim for initial benefits under Cook, supra.  That document is Claimant’s June 24, \n2025, email requesting an “appeal”—discussed above. \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 \n\nBLOCK – H502820 \n \n7 \n \npursuit  of  it  (including  appearing  at  the November  18,  2025,  hearing  to  argue \nagainst its dismissal) since his file was returned to the Commission’s general files \non September 11, 2025—which, again, was triggered by his stated failure that he \nwas no longer interested in pursuing his claim.  Thus, the evidence preponderates \nthat dismissal is warranted under § 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 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. H502820 MARTIN BLOCK, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT SIGNATURE AVIATION, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT STARR INDEMN. & LIAB. CO., CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 19, 2025 Hearing before Chief Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on November 18, 2025, in Little Rock,...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:34:37.528Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H502820-2025-11-19","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Block_Martin_H502820_20251119.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}