{"id":"alj-H504160-2026-04-20","awcc_number":"H504160","decision_date":"2026-04-20","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Franklin Stoddard","employer_name":"City Of Jonesboro","title":"STODDARD VS. CITY OF JONESBORO AWCC# H504160 April 20, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:7","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Stoddard_Franklin_H504160_20260420.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Stoddard_Franklin_H504160_20260420.pdf","text_length":7663,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H504160 \n \n \nFRANKLIN R. STODDARD, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nCITY OF JONESBORO, \n SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nARKANSAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, \n THIRD-PARTY ADM’R RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED APRIL 20, 2025 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge  O.  Milton  Fine  II  on April  17,  2026, in \nJonesboro, Craighead County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se, not appearing. \n \nRespondents represented by Ms. Mary K. Edwards, Attorney at Law, North Little \nRock, 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 April  17,  2026, 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 (see Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n705(a)(1) (Repl. 2012)(Commission must “conduct the hearing . . . in a manner \nwhich  best  ascertains  the  rights  of  the  parties”) and  Respondents’  Exhibit  1, \nforms, pleadings, and correspondence related to this claim, consisting of 15 and \n8 pages, respectively. \n\nSTODDARD – H504160 \n \n2 \n \n The record shows the following procedural history: \n Per  the  First  Report  of  Injury  or  Illness that was  filed on July  3,  2025, \nClaimant  purportedly  suffered a back  injury at  work  on June  13,  2025,  when he \nwas moving extension stands on a trailer.  According to the Form AR-2 that was \nfiled on July 8, 2025, Respondents accepted the claim as a medical-only one. \n On July 24,  2025, through  then-counsel  Mark  Peoples, Claimant  filed  a \nForm AR-C.  Therein, he requested the full range of initial and additional benefits \nin  connection  with  his back injury.   In  electronic  correspondence  accompanying \nthis  filing,  Peoples wrote:  “I am not asking for a hearing.”  In  response  to  this, \nRespondents reversed  course.  In  a  letter  to  the  Commission  dated  July  28, \n2025, Tori Hersey, Claims Adjuster for the Arkansas Municipal League, wrote: \nWe   are   in   receipt   of   your   correspondence   dated   07/28/2025 \nregarding the AR-C filed on the above-referenced claim.  Please let \nthis serve as our timely response. \n \nThis  claim  has  been  denied.    The  First  Report  of  Injury  and  AR-2 \nwere previously filed with your office. \n \n Peoples  moved  to  withdraw  from  his  representation  of  Claimant  on \nSeptember  13,  2025.    In  an  Order  entered  on October  8,  2025,  the  Full \nCommission granted the motion pursuant to AWCC Advisory 2003-2. \n The  record  reflects  that  nothing  further  took  place  on  the  claim  until \nFebruary 18, 2026.  On that date, Respondents’ counsel entered her appearance \nand filed the instant motion under AWCC R. 099.13 (now codified as 11 C.A.R. § \n25-110(d)) and Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(a)(4), asking for dismissal of the claim \n\nSTODDARD – H504160 \n \n3 \n \nbecause Claimant  has not  made  a  hearing  request  on  the  claim  since  its  filing.  \nOn February  20,  2026,  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 \nBlytheville,  Arkansas address for Claimant that  was listed  in  the  file  and  on  his \nForm AR-C.  The certified letter was claimed, on February 24, 2026; and the first-\nclass  letter  was  not  returned.   Regardless,  no  response  to  the  motion  was \nforthcoming.   On March  13,  2026,  a  hearing  on  the  Motion  to  Dismiss  was \nscheduled for April 17, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. at the Craighead County Courthouse in \nJonesboro.   The  certified  mailing  of  the Notice of  Hearing  to  Claimant was \ndelivered to Claimant on March 23, 2026; and the first-class mailing of the same \ndocument 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 aforementioned authorities. \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): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction \nover this matter. \n\nSTODDARD – H504160 \n \n4 \n \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 is hereby \ndismissed without prejudice under 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(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) \n\nSTODDARD – H504160 \n \n5 \n \nClaimant has failed to pursue his claim because he has taken no steps to pursue \nit  (including  appearing  at  the April  17,  2026,  hearing to  argue  against  its \ndismissal) since the filing of his Form AR-C on July 24, 2025.  Thus, the evidence \npreponderates  that  dismissal of  the  claim is  warranted  under 11  C.A.R. § 25-\n110(d).  Because of this finding, the applicability of § 11-9-702(a)(4) is moot and \nwill 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 is hereby dismissed without prejudice. \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). \n\nSTODDARD – H504160 \n \n6 \n \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. H504160 FRANKLIN R. STODDARD, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CITY OF JONESBORO, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, THIRD-PARTY ADM’R RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 20, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on April 17, 202...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:30:05.529Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H504160-2026-04-20","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Stoddard_Franklin_H504160_20260420.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}