Walter Lanigan vs. Crain Ford Of Little Rock LLC

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H403441 WALTER P. LANIGAN, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CRAIN FORD OF LITTLE ROCK LLC, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT RISK MGMT. RESOURCES, THIRD-PARTY ADM’R RESPONDENT OPINION FILED AUGUST 8, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on August 7, 2025, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. Claimant, pro se, not appearing. Respondents represented by Ms. Melissa Wood, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. I. BACKGROUND This matter comes before the Commission on the Motion to Dismiss by Respondents. A hearing on the motion was conducted on August 7, 2025, in Little Rock, Arkansas. No testimony was taken in the case. Claimant, who according to Commission records is pro se, failed to appear at the hearing. Admitted into evidence was Respondents’ Exhibit 1, forms, pleadings, reports, and correspondence related to this claim, consisting of one index page and eight numbered pages thereafter. Also, in order to address adequately this matter under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(1) (Repl. 2012)(Commission must “conduct the hearing . . . in a manner which best ascertains the rights of the parties”), and without objection, I have blue-backed to the record documents from the

LANIGAN – H403441 2 Commission’s file on the claim, consisting of 16 pages. In accordance with Sapp v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2010 Ark. App. 517, 2010 Ark. App. LEXIS 549, these documents have been served on the parties in conjunction with this opinion. The record shows the following procedural history: Per the First Report of Injury or Illness filed on May 28, 2024, Claimant purportedly suffered an injury to his right shoulder at work on March 15, 2024, when he slipped and fell on a wet floor while rolling a trash can. According to the Form AR-2 that was filed on June 3, 2024, Respondents accepted the injury as compensable and paid medical and indemnity benefits pursuant thereto. On September 16, 2024, through then-counsel Mark Alan Peoples, Claimant filed a Form AR-C, requesting the full range of additional benefits and alleging that he actually injured both his right shoulder and upper extremity in the aforementioned incident. Counsel in an email accompanying this filing stated that he was “not asking for a hearing.” In response, Respondents wrote the Commission on September 17, 2024; confirming that they had accepted both injuries. On October 29, 2024, Peoples moved to withdraw from his representation of Claimant. In an Order entered on November 15, 2024, the Full Commission granted the motion under AWCC Advisory 2003-2. The record reflects that nothing further took place on the claim until May 14, 2025. On that date, Respondents filed the instant motion, asking for dismissal

LANIGAN – H403441 3 of the claim under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(d) (Repl. 2012) and AWCC R. 099.13 (now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d)). Therein, they argued that “[m]ore than six months have passed since Claimant filed an AR-C with the Commission . . . [and that he] has not sought any type of bona fide hearing before the . . . Commission over the last six months.” My office wrote Claimant on May 15, 2025, asking for a response to the motion within 20 days. The letter was sent by first class and certified mail to the Little Rock, Arkansas address for him listed in the file and on his Form AR-C. The certified letter was returned to the Commission, unclaimed, on June 17, 2025; but the first-class letter was not returned. Regardless, no response from Claimant to the motion was forthcoming. On June 5, 2025, a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was scheduled for July 31, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. at the Commission in Little Rock. Due to a conflict, the hearing was rescheduled on June 10, 2025, for August 7, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. at the same location. The notices were sent to Claimant via first-class and certified mail to the same address as before. In this instance, he signed for both certified mailings— on June 9 and 13, 2025, respectively; and the first-class letters were not returned. The hearing on the Motion to Dismiss proceeded as scheduled. Again, Claimant failed to appear at the hearing. But Respondents appeared through counsel and argued for dismissal under the foregoing authorities.

LANIGAN – H403441 4 II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW After reviewing the record as a whole, to include documents and other matters properly before the Commission, the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are hereby made in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9- 704 (Repl. 2012): 1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this matter. 2. The parties were provided reasonable notice of the Motion to Dismiss and of the hearing thereon. 3. The evidence preponderates that Claimant has failed to prosecute his claim under AWCC R. 099.13/11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d). 4. The Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted; this claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice under AWCC R. 099.13/11 C.A.R. § 25- 110(d). III. DISCUSSION AWCC R. 099.13/11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d) reads: Upon meritorious application to the Commission from either party in an action pending before the Commission, requesting that the claim be dismissed for want of prosecution, the Commission may, upon reasonable notice to all parties, enter an order dismissing the claim for want of prosecution. See generally Johnson v. Triple T Foods, 55 Ark. App. 83, 85, 929 S.W.2d 730 (1996).

LANIGAN – H403441 5 As the moving party, Respondents under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(3) (Repl. 2012) must prove their entitlement to the relief requested—dismissal of the claim—by a preponderance of the evidence. This standard means the evidence having greater weight or convincing force. Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 S.W.3d 415; Smith v. Magnet Cove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947). As shown by the evidence recounted above, (1) the parties were provided reasonable notice of the Motion to Dismiss and of the hearing thereon; and (2) Claimant has failed to pursue his claim because he has taken no further action in pursuit of it (including appearing at the April 24, 2025, hearing to argue against its dismissal) since the filing of his Form AR-C on July 16, 2024. Thus, the evidence preponderates that dismissal is warranted under the above provision. Because of this finding, the argument made under § 11-9-702(d) will not be addressed. That leaves the question of whether the dismissal of the claim should be with or without prejudice. The Commission possesses the authority to dismiss claims with prejudice. Loosey v. Osmose Wood Preserving Co., 23 Ark. App. 137, 744 S.W.2d 402 (1988). The Commission and the appellate courts have expressed a preference for dismissals without prejudice. See Professional Adjustment Bureau v. Strong, 75 Ark. 249, 629 S.W.2d 284 (1982)). Respondents at the hearing asked for a dismissal without prejudice. I agree and

LANIGAN – H403441 6 find that the dismissal of this claim should be and hereby is entered without prejudice. 1 IV. CONCLUSION In accordance with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, this claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. ________________________________ O. MILTON FINE II Chief Administrative Law Judge 1 “A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ allows a new [claim] to be brought on the same cause of action.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 825 (abridged 5 th ed. 1983).