Linda Bradley vs. Pine Bluff School District

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G708582 LINDA BRADLEY , EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT PINE BLUFF SCHOOL DISTRICT , EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARK SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOC. WCT / RESPONDENT ARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSN. , CARRIER/TPA OPINION FILED 18 MARCH 2026 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (“the Commission”) Administrative Law Judge JayO. Howe on 12 February 2026 in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. The pro se claimant failed to appear. Worley, Wood & Parrish, PA, Ms. Melissa Wood, appeared for the respondents. STATEMENT OF THE CASE A hearing on the respondents’ Motion to Dismiss was held on this matter in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, on 12 February 2026. The record from the hearing consists of the transcript; Respondents’ Exhibit No 1, (one index page and five additional pages of correspondence and filings); and Respondents’ Exhibit No 2 (one index page and an additional nine pages of forms and filings). This claim relates to compensable neck and right shoulder injuries sustained on 4 December 2017. Its procedural history consists of several hearings over the years. Most recently, and after a hearing on 8 May 2025, Administrative Law Judge Chandra Black entered an Opinion and Order on 5 August 2025 finding that the claimant had failed to prove an entitlement to the additional benefits she was seeking (specifically, additional permanent impairment benefits and additional medical benefits). ALJ Black subsequently

L. BRADLEY- G708582 2 entered a Nunc Pro Tunc Order on 14 August 2025 that corrected a clerical error in her Opinion. On 5 November 2025, the respondents requested that this claim be dismissed for the claimant’s failure to prosecute her claim under the Commission Rule at 11 C.A.R. § 25- 110(d). They argued that sufficient time had passed under the Rule without a bona fide request for a hearing on any potentially remaining issues. Notice of the respondents’ motion was sent to the claimant, consistent with Commission practices, via First Class Mail and Certified Mail. Notice of a hearing on the respondents’ motion was sent in the same manner. FINDINDGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW After reviewing the record as a whole, I hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): 1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter. 2. The parties were provided with reasonable notice of the Motion to Dismiss and the hearing on the motion. 3. The evidence preponderates that the claimant has failed to prosecute her claim under 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d). 4. The Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted; this claim is dismissed without prejudice under 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d). DISCUSSION The respondents appeared on 12 February 2026 and presented their motion. As argued by the respondents at the hearing, 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d) provides for a dismissal for failure to prosecute an action upon application by either party and reasonable notice. As noted above, notice of the respondents’ motion and notice of the scheduling of the hearing was provided to the claimant. She has appeared in the past to litigate her case but chose not to attend the hearing to object to this dismissal.

L. BRADLEY- G708582 3 At least eight Forms AR-C appear in the record, with the most recent being filed on 29 February 2024. As noted above, a hearing was last held on 8 May 2025. The subsequent Opinion and Order was not appealed. The respondents argue that the claimant has failed to prosecute her claim since the adjudication of those issues. Indeed, the claimant has not requested a hearing on any potential issue that remains in her claim. No objection was filed to the respondents’ motion to dismiss this claim; and the claimant did not appear at the hearing to resist the dismissal of her claim. Based on the evidence presented, a dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. ORDER The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and this claim for additional benefits is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED. ________________________________ JAYO. HOWE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE