{"id":"alj-H207274-2025-07-07","awcc_number":"H207274","decision_date":"2025-07-07","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Carolyn Norris","employer_name":"Kagome Inc","title":"NORRIS VS. KAGOME INC. AWCC# H207274 July 07, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:10","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Norris_Carolyn_H207274_20250707.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Norris_Carolyn_H207274_20250707.pdf","text_length":6252,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H207274 \n \nCAROLYN NORRIS, EMPLOYEE  CLAIMANT \n \nKAGOME INC., \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                 RESPONDENT \n \nSOMPO AMERICA FIRE AND MARINE \nINSURANCE COMPANY, CARRIER/ \nGALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., TPA                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \n \nOPINION FILED JULY 7, 2025 \n \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge Steven Porch on May 23, 2025 in Jonesboro, Craighead \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant was Pro Se, Osceola, Arkansas. \n \nThe Respondents were represented  by  Mr. Rick Behring,  Jr.,  Attorney  at  Law, Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This matter comes before the Commission on a Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondents \non  February  28,  2025. A  previous  Motion  to  Dismiss hearing was  conducted on September 22, \n2023, in Jonesboro,  Arkansas.   That hearing  was  based  on  a  Motion  to  Dismiss  filed  by \nRespondents  on  August 7,  2023.  There  the Claimant was  represented  by Ms.  Laura  Beth  York, \nAttorney  at  Law.  However, the Claimant  herself nor  her  attorney  were present  at  the  hearing. \nRespondents were represented at that hearing by Mr. David C. Jones, Attorney at Law, of Little \nRock,  Arkansas. I  have  found  during  that  hearing  that  the  Claimant  has  failed  to  prosecute  her \nclaim and granted the dismissal without prejudice. \n The Claimant soon filed a second Form AR-C through her then-attorney Laura Beth York \non  August  21,  2024, where she  purportedly injured  her low  back, right elbow,  and  other  whole \nbody when she slipped on an oily food product on the floor. The Claimant requested initial and  \n\nNORRIS H207274 \n \n 2 \n \nadditional benefits    but did    not    request    a    hearing. The    Claimant    worked    for    the \nRespondent/Employer  as  a filler  operator  lead. The date for Claimant’s alleged injury was on \nSeptember 19,  2022. She  reported  her injury  to  Respondent/Employer  on  the  same  day. \nRespondents admitted into the record Respondents’ Exhibit 1, pleadings, consisting of 14 pages. \nThe Commission has admitted into evidence Commission Ex. 1, correspondence, and U.S. Mail \nreturn receipts, consisting of 6 pages, as discussed infra. \nOn November  7, 2024, Claimant’s then-attorney,  Laura  Beth  York,  filed  a  Motion  to \nWithdraw as Counsel. The Claimant did not object to the withdrawal, and the motion was granted \nby  the  Full  Commission on  November  22,  2024. On  February 28, 2025, Respondents’ counsel \nfiled a Motion to Dismiss due to Claimant’s failure to prosecute his claim. The Claimant was sent, \non March 7, 2025, notice of the Motion to Dismiss, via certified and regular U.S. Mail, to her last \nknown address. The certified motion notice was not claimed by the Claimant as noted on the March \n25,  2025,  return  receipt. However,  the  notice  sent  regular  U.S.  Mail,  was  not  returned  to  the \nCommission. The  Claimant  did  not  respond  to  the  Motion,  in  writing,  as  required.  Thus,  in \naccordance with applicable Arkansas law, the Claimant was mailed due and proper legal notice of \nRespondents’ Motion to Dismiss hearing date at his current address of record via the United States \nPostal  Service  (USPS), First  Class  Certified  Mail,  Return  Receipt  Requested,  and  regular  First-\nClass Mail, on April 14, 2025. The certified notice was not claimed, but the notice sent regular \nU.S.  Mail  did  not  return  to  the  Commission.  The  hearing  took  place  on March  23,  2025. The \nClaimant did not show up to the hearing. \n \n \n\nNORRIS H207274 \n \n 3 \n \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After reviewing the record as a whole and other matters properly before the Commission, \nI hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012):  \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The Claimant and Respondents both had reasonable notice of the May 23, 2025, \nhearing. \n \n3. Respondents have proven by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has \nfailed to prosecute his claim under AWCC Rule 099.13.  \n \n4. The Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \n \n5. This claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice.     \n \n \nIII.  DISCUSSION \n AWCC 099.13 provides: \nUpon  meritorious  application  to  the  Commission  from  either  party  in  an  action \npending before the Commission, requesting that the claim be dismissed for want of \nprosecution, the Commission may, upon reasonable notice to all parties, enter an \norder dismissing the claim for want of prosecution. \n \nSee generally Johnson v. Triple T Foods, 55 Ark. App. 83, 85, 929 S.W.2d 730 (1996).   \nConsistent with AWCC Rule 099.13, the Commission scheduled and conducted a hearing, \nwith reasonable notice, on the Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss. The certified hearing notice was \nnot claimed by the Claimant; however, the hearing notice sent regular U.S. Mail did not return to \nthe  Commission.  The  Claimant  is  responsible  for  updating  their  address  of  record  with  the \nCommission. When a notice is sent to Claimant’s last known address of record, as was the case  \n \n\nNORRIS H207274 \n \n 4 \n \nhere, then reasonable notice was achieved. Thus, I find by the preponderance of the evidence that \nreasonable notice was given to the Claimant.  \nAWCC Rule 099.13 allows the Commission, upon meritorious application, to dismiss an \naction pending before it due to a want of prosecution. The Claimant filed her second Form AR-C \non August 21, 2024. Since then, she has failed to request a bona fide hearing. Therefore, I do find \nby the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has failed to prosecute her claim by failing to \nrequest a hearing. Thus, Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \nCONCLUSION \n Based  on  the Findings  of Fact  and Conclusions  of Law set forth above, Respondents’ \nMotion to Dismiss is hereby granted, and Claimant’s claim is dismissed without prejudice. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n      ________________________________________ \n      STEVEN PORCH \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H207274 CAROLYN NORRIS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT KAGOME INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT SOMPO AMERICA FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, CARRIER/ GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JULY 7, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge Steven P...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:38:19.150Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H207274-2025-07-07","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Norris_Carolyn_H207274_20250707.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}