{"id":"alj-H504384-2026-02-05","awcc_number":"H504384","decision_date":"2026-02-05","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Julanda Allen","employer_name":"Heart To Heart, Inc","title":"ALLEN VS. HEART TO HEART, INC. AWCC# H504384 February 05, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:8","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Allen_Julanda_H504384_20260205.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Allen_Julanda_H504384_20260205.pdf","text_length":8911,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H504384 \n \n \nJULANDA ALLEN, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nHEART TO HEART, INC., \nEMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nWELLFLEET NY 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 represented by Mr. Phillip J. Wells, Attorney at Law, Jonesboro, Arkansas \n(neither appearing). \n \nRespondents represented by Mr. Melissa Wood, 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 February  5,  2026,  in Little \nRock, Arkansas.  No testimony was taken in the case.  Claimant failed to appear at the \nhearing;  and  her  counsel  waived  his  appearance.   Admitted  into  evidence  were \nCommission Exhibit  1 and  Respondents’  Exhibit  1,  pleadings,  correspondence  and \nforms related to this claim, consisting of 22 and 9 pages, respectively.  See Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-705(a)(1) (Repl. 2012)(Commission must “conduct the hearing . . . in a \nmanner which best ascertains the rights of the parties”). \n\nALLEN – H504384 \n \n2 \n \n The record reflects the following procedural history: \n On July  15,  2025,  through  counsel,  Claimant  filed  a  Form  AR-C.    Therein, she \nalleged  that she  injured  her  back  at  work  on  November  17,  2023,  while  working  as  a \ncertified  nursing  assistant.   The boxes  on  the  form  were  checked  to  indicate  that \nClaimant  was  seeking  all  manner  of additional benefits.  In  a letter accompanying  this \nfiling and  dated  June 30,  2025, Counsel stated  that “[t]he claim has been accepted as \ncompensable and [Claimant] is currently receiving appropriate temporary total disability \nbenefits.”  However, on July 16, 2025, counsel wrote the Commission: \n[Claimant]  has  been  receiving  temporary  disability  checks  that  are  no \nlonger  being  paid.    Please  allow  this  letter  to  represent  a  request  for  a \nhearing   [o]n   her   entitlement   to   continue[d]   temporary   total   disability \nbenefits. \n \nThe  file  was  assigned  to  me  on  July 17,  2025;  and  on  July  18,  2025,  my  office  sent \nprehearing notices and questionnaires to the parties.  Claimant through counsel filed a \ntimely  preliminary  notice  on  July  18,  2025.   But  on  July  29,  2025,  he  again  wrote  the \nCommission: \n[Claimant]  indicated  that  she  was  not  receiving  her  temporary  disability \nchecks.  I received a log of payments from the worker[s’] comp. carrier as \nwell  as  a  confirmation  from  [Claimant]  that  she  is  getting  her  temporary \ndisability payments.  Please allow this letter to represent a request that the \nhearing be canceled and that her case return to general files. \n \nThis  request  was  granted.    On  July  30,  2025,  my  office  informed  the  parties  by  email \nthat the file was being returned to the Commission’s general files.  The prehearing \nprocess ceased. \n\nALLEN – H504384 \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,  asking  for  dismissal  of \nthe  claim  under AWCC  R.  099.13  (now  codified  as 11  C.A.R.  §  25-110(d)) and  Ark. \nCode Ann. § 11-9-702 (Repl. 2012) due to Claimant’s alleged failure to, inter alia, make \na bona fide hearing request within the previous six months.  The file was reassigned to \nme  on January  15,  2026;  and  on that  same  date,  my  office  wrote  Claimant and  her \ncounsel, asking for a response to the motion within 20 days.  Claimant’s counsel filed a \nresponse to the motion on January 19, 2026.  The response reads in pertinent part: \n[Claimant]  is  continuing  to  receive  temporary  total  disability  benefits  and \nhas not reached maximum medical improvement.  Since the matter is not \nsubject  to  controversion,  no  hearing  has  been  requested  .  .  . [c]laimant \ndoes  not  object  to  an  Order  being  entered  dismissing  the  claim  without \nprejudice at this stage of the proceedings. \n \nIn an email to my office on January 21, 2026, Claimant’s counsel stated:  “We are not \nobjecting  to  an  order  of  dismissal  without  prejudice.    I  therefore  assume  we  are  not \nneeded to appear.  Is that correct?”  My office replied in the affirmative.  The above \nstatement by counsel was interpreted as his and Claimant’s waiver of their appearances \nat the hearing. \n On January  21,  2026, a  hearing  on  the  Motion  to  Dismiss  was  scheduled  for \nFebruary 5,  2026,  at  12:30 p.m.  at  the Commission  in  Little  Rock.    The Notice of \nHearing was sent not only to Claimant’s counsel, but to Claimant herself via first-class \nand certified mail to the address for her in Hughes, Arkansas, listed on her Form AR-C.  \n\nALLEN – H504384 \n \n4 \n \nThe certified  letter was  claimed on January 29,  2026,  by  someone  with  an  illegible \nsignature; and the one sent by first-class mail was not returned. \n The  hearing  on  the  Motion  to  Dismiss  proceeded  as  scheduled  on February 5, \n2026.    Again,  Claimant and  her  counsel failed  to  appear  at  the  hearing.    But \nRespondents   appeared   through   counsel   and   argued   for   dismissal   under   the \naforementioned authorities. \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 claim. \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). \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 \n\nALLEN – H504384 \n \n5 \n \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 \nsince her file was returned to the Commission’s general files on July  30,  2025.    Thus, \nthe evidence preponderates that dismissal is warranted under § 25-110(d).  Because of \nthis finding, it is unnecessary to address the application of Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(d) \n(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 \n\nALLEN – H504384 \n \n6 \n \nwithout prejudice; and Claimant (through counsel) indicated that his client did not object \nto this.  I agree and find that the dismissal of this claim should be and hereby is entered \nwithout prejudice.\n1\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 \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. H504384 JULANDA ALLEN, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT HEART TO HEART, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT WELLFLEET NY 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, Pulaski ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:31:43.650Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H504384-2026-02-05","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Allen_Julanda_H504384_20260205.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}