{"id":"alj-H305214-2026-04-16","awcc_number":"H305214","decision_date":"2026-04-16","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Tina Thurman","employer_name":"Gpm Investments, LLC","title":"THURMAN VS. GPM INVESTMENTS, LLC. AWCC# H305214 April 16, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:10","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Thurman_Tina_H305214_20260416.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Thurman_Tina_H305214_20260416.pdf","text_length":6449,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H305214 \n \nTINA THURMAN, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nGPM INVESTMENTS, LLC., \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \nACE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., \nCARRIER                                                                                                             RESPONDENT \n \nHELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, \nTPA                                                                                                                        RESPONDENT   \n \n \nOPINION FILED APRIL 16, 2025 \n \nHearing conducted on Friday, March 10,  2026,  before  the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission  (the  Commission),  Administrative  Law  Judge (ALJ) Steven  Porch,  in Little  Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant is Pro Se, of Quitman, Arkansas.  \n \nThe Respondents  were represented by Mr. Zachary  F. Ryburn,  Attorney  at  Law, Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This matter comes before the Commission on a Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondents \non January 6, 2026.  A hearing on the motion was conducted on March 10, 2026, in Little Rock, \nArkansas.  Claimant, according to Commission file is Pro Se, failed to appear at the hearing.  \nThe  Claimant  worked  for  the  Respondent/Employer  as an audit  manager.  The  date  for \nClaimant’s  alleged  injury  was  on August 3,   2023. This   incident   was   reported   to   the \nRespondent/Employer on August  8,  2023. Admitted  into  evidence  was Respondents’ Exhibit 1, \npleadings, consisting of 3 pages, and Commission Ex. 1, U.S. Mail return receipts, consisting of 3 \npages, as discussed infra. \n\nTHURMAN, AWCC No. H305214 \n \n2 \n \n \nThe record reflects on August 15, 2023, a Form AR-1 was filed purporting that Claimant, \nwhile counting merchandise, moved a case of beverages and felt immediate pain in her back. On \nAugust 17, 2023, a Form AR-2 was filed neither disputing or accepting that Claimant was injured \nduring the course and scope of employment.  On September 12, 2023, a Form AR-C was filed by \nClaimants  then-attorney, Laura  Beth  York,  purporting  that  Claimant  sustained an injury to  her \nback and other whole body during a work incident.  \nOn November 18, 2025, Claimant’s counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. The \nFull Commission granted the motion on December 12, 2025. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss \non January 6, 2026, for failure to prosecute. The Claimant was sent, on January 7, 2026, notice of \nthe Motion to Dismiss, via certified and regular U.S. Mail, to her last known address. The certified \nmotion notice was not claimed by Claimant as noted by the return of the certified return receipt \ndated January 22,  2026. This  notice was  also  sent regular  U.S.  Mail and did not return  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 her current address of record via the United States \nPostal  Service  (USPS), First  Class  Certified  Mail,  Return  Receipt  Requested,  and  regular  First-\nClass Mail, on February 4, 2026. The certified notice was not claimed as noted by the return of the \ncertified  letter to  the  Commission on February 25,  2026. The  hearing  notice  sent  regular  First-\nClass was not returned to the Commission. The hearing was scheduled for March 10, 2026. And \nas mentioned before, the Claimant did not show up to the hearing. \n \n \n\nTHURMAN, AWCC No. H305214 \n \n3 \n \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 March 10, 2026, \nhearing. \n \n3. Respondents have proven by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has \nfailed to prosecute her claim under 11 C.A.R. §25-110(d) (formerly AWCC Rule \n099.13).  \n \n4. The Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \n \n5. This claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice.     \n \n \nIII.  DISCUSSION \n 11 C.A.R. §25-110(d) 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 11  C.A.R. §25-110(d), the  Commission  scheduled  and  conducted  a \nhearing,  with  reasonable  notice, on  the Respondents’ Motion  to Dismiss. The  certified  hearing \nnotice  was not claimed by  Claimant.  The  notice  sent  regular  U.S.  Mail  was not returned  to  the \nCommission.  The  Claimant  is  responsible  for  keeping  the  Commission  apprised  of  her  current \n\nTHURMAN, AWCC No. H305214 \n \n4 \n \naddress. The Claimant did not do that. Nevertheless, sending notices to the last known address of \nrecord  is  reasonable. Thus,  I  find  by  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  the  Claimant  did \nreceive reasonable notice of this motion to dismiss hearing.  \nFurthermore, 11 C.A.R. §25-110(d) allows the Commission, upon meritorious application, \nto dismiss an action pending before it due to  a want of prosecution. The  Claimant filed a Form \nAR-C on September 12, 2023, since then the Claimant has not requested a bona fide full hearing, \nthus failing to prosecute her claim. Therefore, I do find by the preponderance of the evidence that \nClaimant  has  failed  to  prosecute  her claim. Thus, Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be \ngranted. \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      STEVEN PORCH \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H305214 TINA THURMAN, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT GPM INVESTMENTS, LLC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., CARRIER RESPONDENT HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 16, 2025 Hearing conducted on Friday, March 10, 2026, befor...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:30:01.357Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H305214-2026-04-16","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Thurman_Tina_H305214_20260416.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}