{"id":"alj-H504493-2026-03-17","awcc_number":"H504493","decision_date":"2026-03-17","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Yowin Mejia","employer_name":"Michael Phillips","title":"MEJIA VS. MICHAEL PHILLIPS AWCC# H504493 March 17, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:8","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["wrist","knee"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Mejia_Yowin_H504493_20260317.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Mejia_Yowin_H504493_20260317.pdf","text_length":7025,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H504493 \n \n \nYOWIN MEJIA, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nMICHAEL PHILLIPS, \nEMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nTECHNOLOGY 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 \nLittle Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se, not appearing. \n \nRespondents represented  by  Mr. William  C.  Frye,  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 March  17,  2026, in \nLittle  Rock,  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  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”),  forms,  pleadings,  and \ncorrespondence related to this claim, consisting of 13 pages. \n\nMEJIA – H504493 \n \n2 \n \n The record shows the following procedural history: \n Per  the  First  Report  of  Injury  or  Illness  filed  on August 4,  2025,  Claimant \npurportedly suffered injuries to his wrist and right knee on June 2, 2025, when he \nfell off the roof of a carport and landed face-down on the concrete.  According to \nthe Form AR-2 that was also filed on August 4, 2025, Respondents controverted \nthe  claim in  its  entirety.  Two  days  later,  through  counsel,  Respondents  denied \nthat Claimant was an employee of the alleged employer. \n On July 21, 2025, Claimant filed a Form AR-C, requesting initial benefits in \nthe  form  of  medical  and temporary total  disability  benefits.   Therein,  he  claimed \nthat  he  fractured  both  wrists  and  his  right  knee  in  the  alleged  fall.   No  hearing \nrequest  accompanied  this  filing.   Later,  in  an  undated handwritten  note  on \ncorrespondence  sent  to  him  by  the  Commission,  Claimant  also  claimed  a  dental \ninjury. \n The  record  reflects  that  nothing  further  took  place  on  the  claim  until \nJanuary 22, 2026.  On that date, Respondents filed the instant motion, asking for \ndismissal  of  the  claim under  AWCC  R. 099.13  (now  codified  at  11  C.A.R. § 25-\n110(d)).  Therein, they argued that Claimant has taken no measures to pursue his \nclaim,  including  requesting  a  hearing  thereon,  since  the  filing  of  the  Form  AR-C.  \nThe  file  was  assigned  to Administrative  Law  Judge  James  Kennedy on January \n23, 2026; and on that same date, his office wrote Claimant, asking for a response \nto the motion within 20 days.  The letter was sent by first class and certified mail \n\nMEJIA – H504493 \n \n3 \n \nto the Conway, Arkansas address for him listed in the file and on his Form AR-C.  \nBut   both   items   of   correspondence   were   returned   to   the   Commission.  \nUnsurprisingly,  no  response  from Claimant to  the  motion was  forthcoming.    On \nFebruary 13, 2026, a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was scheduled for March \n17, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. at the Commission in Little Rock.  The Notice of Hearing \nwas sent  to  Claimant  via  first-class  and  certified  mail to  the  same  address as \nbefore.  Once again, both items were returned to the Commission. \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 above 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. \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). \n\nMEJIA – H504493 \n \n4 \n \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) 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) \nClaimant has failed to pursue his claim because he has taken no further action in \npursuit of it (including appearing at the March 17, 2026, hearing to argue against \nits dismissal)  since the  filing  of  his Form  AR-C  on July  21,  2025.    Thus,  the \nevidence preponderates that dismissal is warranted under the above provision. \n\nMEJIA – H504493 \n \n5 \n \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.  I agree and \nfind  that  the  dismissal  of  this  claim  should  be  and  hereby  is  entered without \nprejudice.\n1\n \nIV.  CONCLUSION \n In  accordance  with  the Findings  of Fact  and Conclusions  of Law  set  forth \nabove, this claim for initial 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. H504493 YOWIN MEJIA, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT MICHAEL PHILLIPS, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TECHNOLOGY 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, Pulaski County, Arka...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:30:49.357Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H504493-2026-03-17","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Mejia_Yowin_H504493_20260317.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}