{"id":"alj-H402327-2026-03-30","awcc_number":"H402327","decision_date":"2026-03-30","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Ethel Hall","employer_name":"Walmart Associates, Inc","title":"HALL VS. WALMART ASSOCIATES, INC. AWCC# H402327 March 30, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:10","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Hall_Ethel_H402327_20260330.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Hall_Ethel_H402327_20260330.pdf","text_length":7488,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H402327 \n \nETHEL L. HALL, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nWALMART ASSOCIATES, INC., \nEMPLOYER /CARRIER/TPA                                                                           RESPONDENT  \n \n \nOPINION FILED MARCH 30, 2025 \n \nHearing conducted on Friday, February 24,  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 Greenbrier, Arkansas.  \n \nThe Respondents  were represented by Mr. Michael  C.  Stiles,  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 December 19, 2025.  A hearing on the motion was conducted on February 24, 2026, in Little \nRock, Arkansas.  Claimant, according to Commission file is Pro Se, failed to appear at the hearing.  \nThe  Claimant  worked  for  the  Respondent/Employer  as an  automation  support  associate. \nThe date for Claimant’s alleged injury was on May 22, 2023. This incident was reported to the \nRespondent/Employer on April 8,  2024. Admitted  into  evidence  was Respondents’ Exhibit 1, \npleadings,  and  correspondence,  consisting  of 9 pages,  and Commission  Ex. 1, pleadings, \ncorrespondence, and U.S. Mail return receipts, consisting of 15 pages, as discussed infra. \nThe record reflects on April 5, 2024, a Form AR-C was filed by Claimant purporting that \nClaimant sustained an injury to her left shoulder during a work incident. On April 15, 2024, a Form \nAR-1 was filed purporting that no incident was ever reported to management. On April 23, 2024, \n\nHALL, AWCC No. H402327 \n \n2 \n \na  Form  AR-2  was  filed disputing  that  Claimant  was  injured  during  the  course  and  scope  of \nemployment.  On May 28, 2024, a Form AR-C was filed by Claimants then-attorney, Gary Davis, \npurporting  that  Claimant  sustained an injury to  her left  shoulder and  arm  while  lifting  cases  of \nwater.  \nRespondents  filed  a  motion  to  dismiss  on  October  29,  2024,  for  failure  to  prosecute. \nClaimant objected to the dismissal, in writing, and requested a full hearing on November 21, 2024. \nI  held  the  dismissal  request  in  abeyance  on  the  same  day.  On  January  21, 2025,  a  prehearing \ntelephone conference was held, and a prehearing order was filed on the same day. The prehearing \norder  was also sent  out  the  same  day,  certified  mail,  to  Claimant  and  Claimant’s  counsel. \nClaimant’s certified letter was returned to the Commission; however, Claimant’s counsel’s letter \nwas  not  returned  to  the Commission. The  full  hearing  was  set  for  March  25,  2025,  10:00 a.m., \nLittle Rock, Arkansas. On January 30, 2025, Claimant’s counsel sent an email that stated he was \nhaving difficulty in locating the Claimant. On March 11, 2025, Respondents sent an email asking \nfor a continuance due to incomplete discovery, mainly Claimant’s failure to appear at a scheduled \ndeposition. I granted the continuance and sent the file back to general files.  \nOn March 12, 2025, Claimant’s then-attorney filed a Motion to Withdraw as Claimant’s \nattorney due to her failure to communicate with him. The Full Commission granted Mr. Davis’s \nmotion on April 9, 2025. Respondents filed another motion to dismiss due to Claimant’s failure to \nprosecute her claim on December 19, 2025. The Claimant was sent, on December 30, 2025, notice \nof  the  Motion  to  Dismiss, via certified  and  regular  U.S.  Mail,  to  her last  known  address.  The \ncertified motion notice was not claimed by Claimant as noted by the return of the certified letter \nto  the  Commission on January  5,  2025. This  notice was  also  sent regular  U.S.  Mail and was \nreturned to the Commission on the same date as the certified letter. Moreover, as a courtesy, the \n\nHALL, AWCC No. H402327 \n \n3 \n \nmotion  notice  was  sent  to  Claimant,  via  email,  on  December  30,  2025. The  Claimant  did not \nrespond to the Motion, in writing, as required. Thus, in accordance with applicable Arkansas law, \nthe Claimant was mailed due and proper legal notice of Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss hearing \ndate  at  her current  address  of  record  via  the  United  States  Postal  Service  (USPS),  First  Class \nCertified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular First-Class Mail, on January 22, 2026. The \ncertified notice was not claimed as noted by the February 2, 2026, return receipt. Likewise, the \nhearing  notice  sent  regular  First-Class  was  returned  to  the  Commission on  that same  date. The \nhearing took place on February 24, 2026. And as mentioned before, the Claimant did not show up \nto the hearing. \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 February 24, \n2026, hearing. \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: \n\nHALL, AWCC No. H402327 \n \n4 \n \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  returned  to  the \nCommission  on  February  2,  2026.  The  Claimant  is  responsible  for  keeping  the  Commission \napprised of her current address. The Claimant did not do that. Nevertheless, sending notices to the \nlast known address of record is reasonable. Thus, I find by the preponderance of the evidence that \nthe Claimant did receive 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 but  has  failed  to  prosecute  her  claim. Therefore,  I  do  find  by  the  preponderance  of  the \nevidence that Claimant has failed to prosecute her claim. Thus, Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss \nshould 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. H402327 ETHEL L. HALL, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT WALMART ASSOCIATES, INC., EMPLOYER /CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 30, 2025 Hearing conducted on Friday, February 24, 2026, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (the Commission), Administrat...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:31:20.705Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H402327-2026-03-30","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Hall_Ethel_H402327_20260330.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}