{"id":"alj-H503508-2026-03-17","awcc_number":"H503508","decision_date":"2026-03-17","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Eunice Miller","employer_name":"Dassault Falcon Jet Corp","title":"MILLER VS. DASSAULT FALCON JET CORP. AWCC# H503508 March 17, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:8","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Miller_Eunice_H503508_20260317.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Miller_Eunice_H503508_20260317.pdf","text_length":7430,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H503508 \n \n \nEUNICE MILLER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nDASSAULT FALCON JET CORP., \nEMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nSTARR SPECIALTY INS. CO., \nCARRIER RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED MARCH 17, 2026 \n \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on March 17, 2026, in Little \nRock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se, not appearing. \n \nRespondents represented by Ms. Claire Hafeez, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \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 March  17,  2026,  in \nJonesboro, 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 17 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 The record reflects the following procedural history: \n Per  the  First  Report  of  Injury  or  Illness  filed  on June  6,  2025,  Claimant \npurportedly suffered an injury to her back on May 5, 2025, while moving boxes at work.  \n\nMILLER – H503508 \n \n2 \n \nAccording to the Form AR-2 that was filed on June 9, 2025, Respondents accepted the \nclaim as compensable and paid medical and indemnity benefits pursuant thereto. \n On June  30,  2025,  through  then-counsel Mark  Alan  Peoples,  Claimant  filed  a \nForm AR-C.  All boxes on the form were checked to indicate that Claimant was seeking \nall manner of initial and additional benefits in connection with her alleged back injury.  In  \nemails accompanying this filing, Peoples stated that he was “not asking for a hearing”; \nbut  he  did  request  a  change  of  physician  on  her  behalf.  Respondents emailed  the \nCommission on  July  3,  2025,  reiterating  that  they had  accepted  the  claim.  On August \n14,  2025,  when  the  Commission  notified  Peoples  that  Claimant  had  declined  the \nappointment  with  her  newly-assigned  physician,  counsel  withdrew  the  change-of-\nphysician request. \n In  an email  to  the  Commission  sent  on August  14,  2025, Peoples moved  to \nwithdraw  from  the  case.    In  an  Order  entered  on September  10,  2025,  the  Full \nCommission granted the motion under AWCC Advisory 2003-2. \n The  record  reflects  that  nothing  further  took  place  on  the  claim  until December \n19,  2025.    On  that  date,  Respondents  filed  the  instant  motion,  asking  for  dismissal  of \nthe  claim  under 11  C.A.R.  §  25-110(d) “due to lack of activity by the Pro Se Claimant \nand her failure to obtain counsel after Mark Peoples withdrew as counsel . . . .”  The file \nwas assigned to Administrative Law Judge James Kennedy on December 19, 2025; and \non that same date, his office wrote Claimant, asking for a response to the motion within \n20  days.    The  letter  was  sent  by certified  and first-class  mail  to  the Benton, Arkansas \n\nMILLER – H503508 \n \n3 \n \naddress  of  Claimant  listed  in  the  file  and on her Form  AR-C.   Claimant signed  for  the \ncertified  letter  on December 22,  2025;  and  the  first-class  mailing was  not  returned.  \nHowever, no response from her to the motion was forthcoming.  On February 11, 2026, \na hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was scheduled for March 17, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. at \nthe Commission  in  Little  Rock.    The Notice of  Hearing was  sent  to  Claimant  via  first-\nclass and certified mail to the same address in Benton as before.  In this instance, the \ncertified letter went unclaimed; but the one sent by first-class mail was not returned. \n The  hearing  on  the  Motion  to  Dismiss  proceeded  as  scheduled  on March  17, \n2026.    Again,  Claimant  failed  to  appear  at  the  hearing.    But  Respondents  appeared \nthrough counsel and argued for dismissal under the aforementioned authority. \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  her \nclaim under 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d). \n\nMILLER – H503508 \n \n4 \n \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 \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  her claim  because she  has  taken  no  further  action  in  pursuit  of  it \n(including  appearing  at  the January  2,  2026,  hearing  to  argue  against  its  dismissal) \nsince the filing of her Form AR-C on June 30, 2025.  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 with or \nwithout  prejudice.    The  Commission  possesses  the  authority  to  dismiss  claims  with \n\nMILLER – H503508 \n \n5 \n \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 \nIV.  CONCLUSION \n In accordance with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, \nthis 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 same \ncause of action.”  BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 825 (abridged 5\nth\n ed. 1983).","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H503508 EUNICE MILLER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT DASSAULT FALCON JET CORP., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT STARR SPECIALTY INS. CO., CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 17, 2026 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on March 17, 2026, in Little Rock, Pula...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:30:51.426Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H503508-2026-03-17","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Miller_Eunice_H503508_20260317.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}