Denisha Shepherd vs. Little Rock Hl

1 BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H502140 DENISHA SHEPHERD, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT LITTLE ROCK HL, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT INDEMNITY INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA/ ESIS, INC. CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 25, 2025, GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Hearing conducted on Tuesday, November 25, 2025, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (the Commission), Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mike Pickens, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. The claimant, Ms. Denisha Shepherd, pro se, of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, failed and/or refused to appear at the hearing. The respondents were represented by the Honorable William C. (Bill) Frye, Frye Law Firm, P.A., North Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. STATEMENT OF THE CASE A hearing was conducted on Thursday, September 11, 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 claimant initially was represented by counsel in this matter, Mr. Mark Peoples of the Peoples Law Firm of Little Rock; however, by an order filed September 10, 2025, the Full

Denisha Shepherd, AWCC No. H502140 2 Commission unanimously granted Mr. Peoples’s motion to withdraw as the claimant’s counsel of record. (Commission Exhibit 1). Thereafter, on September 25, 2025, the respondents filed via email a letter motion to dismiss this claim without prejudice for lack of prosecution (MTD). (Comms’n Ex. 2; 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 MTD hearing. The claimant has failed and/or refused to respond to the respondents’ MTD in any way; has failed and/or refused to object to the respondents’ MTD; and failed and/or refused to appear at the hearing. 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 her claim, or to request a hearing within the last six (6) months. Moreover, she has failed and/or refused to object to the respondents’ MTD. 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:

Denisha Shepherd, AWCC No. H502140 3 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. 2. After having received due and legal notice of both the respondents’ letter MTD without prejudice filed with the Commission on September 25, 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; failed and/or refused to object to the MTD; 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 action(s) to raise any issues related to or to prosecute this claim. 4. Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence compels the decision the respondents’ letter MTD without prejudice filed September 25, 2025, should be and hereby is GRANTED; and this claim 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

Denisha Shepherd, AWCC No. H502140 4 MP/mp