{"id":"alj-H307928-2026-04-28","awcc_number":"H307928","decision_date":"2026-04-28","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Patricia Lee","employer_name":"Goodwill Industries Of Ark Inc","title":"LEE VS. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF ARK INC. AWCC# H307928 April 28, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:9","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["back","neck","ankle","strain"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Lee_Patricia_H307928_20260428.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Lee_Patricia_H307928_20260428.pdf","text_length":6368,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H307928 \n \nPATRICIA LEE, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nGOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF ARK INC., \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \nATA WORKERS’ COMP. SI TRUST, \nCARRIER                                                                                                             RESPONDENT \n \nRISK MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, \nTPA                                                                                                                        RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED APRIL 28, 2026 \n \nHearing conducted on Friday, March 31,  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 Little Rock, Arkansas.  \n \nThe Respondents were represented by Mr. Jarrod Parrish, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This matter comes before the Commission on a Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondents \non January 16, 2026.  A hearing on the motion was conducted on March 31, 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’s crew team. The date for Claimant’s \nalleged injury was on November 20, 2023. This incident was reported to the Respondent/Employer \non the   same   date. Admitted   into   evidence   was Respondents’  Exhibit 1,   pleadings,   and \ncorrespondence,  consisting  of 10 pages,  and Commission  Ex. 1, emails, and  U.S.  Mail  return \nreceipts, consisting of 6 pages, as discussed infra. \n\nLEE, AWCC No. H307928 \n \n2 \n \n \nThe record reflects on December 6, 2023, a Form AR-C was filed by Claimant purporting \nthat Claimant sustained injuries to her back, neck, left leg, left arm and chest when she mis stepped \ndue to a cart obstruction in the walkway and falling on her face. On December 11, 2023, a Form \nAR-1 was filed with the Commission noting that Claimant’s injuries occurred when she placed an \nitem at a station, turned around, and tripped over a cart. Also on December 11, 2023, a Form AR-\n2 was filed accepting compensability for the left foot/ankle strain and left forearm abrasion. On \nDecember  13,  2023,  an  amended  Form  AR-2 was filed denying compensability of Claimant’s \ninjuries.     \nThe Respondents filed  a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution on January 16, 2026. \nThe Claimant was sent, on February 4, 2026, notice of the Motion to Dismiss, via certified and \nregular  U.S.  Mail,  to  his last  known  address.  The  certified motion notice was not claimed  by \nClaimant as  noted on  the March 2,  2026,  return  receipt. This  delivery  service  was  to  the \nCommission  itself. This  notice was  also  sent regular  U.S.  Mail and likewise returned to  the \nCommission. As  a  result,  the  Claimant  did not respond  to  the  Motion,  in  writing,  as  required. \nNevertheless,  in  accordance  with  applicable  Arkansas  law,  the  Claimant  was  mailed  due  and \nproper legal notice of Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss hearing date to her current address of record \nvia the United States Postal Service (USPS), First Class Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, \nand regular First-Class Mail, on February 27, 2026. The certified notice was not claimed as noted \nby the March 10, 2026, return receipt. Likewise, the hearing notice sent regular First-Class was \nreturned to the Commission. The hearing took place on March 31, 2026. And as mentioned before, \nthe Claimant did not show up to the hearing. \n \n\nLEE, AWCC No. H307928 \n \n3 \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 31, 2026, \nhearing. \n \n3. Respondents have proven by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has \nfailed to prosecute his 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, per the return postal notice bearing the March 10, 2026, date. \nThe Claimant has a duty to provide the Commission with her most current address. The Claimant  \n \n\nLEE, AWCC No. H307928 \n \n4 \n \nhas failed to do so. But sending notices to Claimant’s last known address of record is reasonable. \nThus, I find by the preponderance of the evidence that reasonable notice was given to the Claimant.  \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 his Form \nAR-C on December 6, 2023. Since then, she has failed to request a bona fide hearing. Therefore, \nI  do  find  by  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  Claimant  has  failed  to  prosecute  her claim. \nThus, 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      STEVEN PORCH \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H307928 PATRICIA LEE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF ARK INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ATA WORKERS’ COMP. SI TRUST, CARRIER RESPONDENT RISK MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 28, 2026 Hearing conducted on Friday, March 31, 2026, be...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:30:17.952Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H307928-2026-04-28","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Lee_Patricia_H307928_20260428.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}