Anthony Reedy vs. City Of El Dorado

1 BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H407551 ANTHONY REEDY, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CITY OF EL DORADO, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM/ ARK. MUNICIPAL LEAGUE TYNET CORP. CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 12, 2025, GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Hearing conducted on Thursday, September 11, 2025, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (the Commission), Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mike Pickens, in El Dorado, Union County, Arkansas. The claimant, Mr. Anthony Reedy, pro se, failed and/or refused to appear at the hearing. The respondents were represented by the Honorable Mary K. Edwards, Arkansas Municipal League, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. STATEMENT OF THE CASE A hearing was conducted on Thursday, August 21, 2025, to determine whether this claim should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(a)(4) (2025 Lexis Replacement) and 11 C.A.R. Section 25-110(d) (Code of AR Regulations 2025) (formerly cited as Commission Rule 099.13 (2025 Lexis Replacement)). The respondents filed a motion to dismiss this claim without prejudice for lack of prosecution (MTD) on June 26, 2025. (RX1 at 6-8). The claimant filed two (2) Form AR-Cs in this claim the

Anthony Reedy, AWCC No. H407551 2 first on November 18, 2024, and the second on November 25, 2025), apparently alleging different dates of injury and requesting different benefits; but filing both Form AR-Cs under the same claim number. (Respondents’ Exhibit 1). In accordance with the applicable law the claimant was provided due and legal notice of both the respondents’ MTD as well as the date, time, and place of the subject hearing. Thereafter, the claimant failed and/or refused to respond to the respondents’ motion in any way, or to appear at the subject hearing. Upon information and belief, it appears the claimant returned to work for the City of El Dorado. The record herein consists of the hearing transcript and any and all exhibits contained therein and attached thereto. DISCUSSION Consistent with Ark. Code Ann.§ 11-9-702(a)(4) (2025 Lexis Replacement), as well as our court of appeals’ ruling in Dillard vs. Benton County Sheriff’s Office, 87 Ark. App. 379, 192 S.W.3d 287 (Ark. App. 2004), the Commission scheduled and conducted a hearing on the respondents’ MTD. Rather than recite a detailed analysis of the record, suffice it to say the preponderance of the evidence introduced at the hearing and contained in the record conclusively reveals the claimant has failed and/or refused to either actively prosecute his claim, or to request a hearing in the last six (6) months. Therefore, after a thorough consideration of the issues at bar, the applicable law as applied to the facts of this claim, and other relevant matters of record including the representations of credible counsel, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Commission has jurisdiction of this claim.

Anthony Reedy, AWCC No. H407551 3 2. After having received due and legal notice of both the respondents’ MTD without prejudice filed with the Commission on June 26, 2025, as well as due and legal notice of the date, time, and place of the subject hearing, the claimant failed and/or refused to respond to the MTD in any way and failed and/or refused to appear at the subject hearing. 3. The claimant has not requested a hearing within the last six (6) months and has taken no steps to raise any issues related to or to prosecute this claim. 4. Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence compels the decision the respondents’ MTD without prejudice filed June 26, 2025, should be and hereby is GRANTED; and this claim (including but not limited to both of the Form AR-Cs the claimant filed in November 2024) is dismissed without prejudice to its refiling pursuant to the deadlines prescribed by Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-9-702(a) and (b) and 11 C.A.R. 25-110(d) (formerly cited as Commission Rule 099.13). If they have not already done so, the respondents hereby are ordered to pay the court reporter’s invoice within twenty (20) days of their receipt thereof. IT IS SO ORDERED. ____________________________ Mike Pickens Administrative Law Judge MP/mp

Anthony Reedy, AWCC No. H407551 4