{"id":"alj-H403176-2025-12-17","awcc_number":"H403176","decision_date":"2025-12-17","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Melisha Mccorkle","employer_name":"Frito Lay, Inc","title":"MCCORKLE VS. FRITO LAY, INC. AWCC# H403176 December 17, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:10","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["back","knee","hip"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/McCorkle_Melisha_H403176_20251217.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"McCorkle_Melisha_H403176_20251217.pdf","text_length":6193,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H403176 \n \nMELISHA D. MCCORKLE, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nFRITO LAY, INC., \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \nINDEMNITY INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA, \nCARRIER                                                                                                             RESPONDENT \n \nSEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, \nTPA                                                                                                                        RESPONDENT \n \n \n \nOPINION FILED DECEMBER 17, 2025 \n \nHearing conducted on Friday, November 14, 2025, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission  (the  Commission),  Administrative  Law  Judge (ALJ) Steven  Porch,  in Jonesboro, \nCraighead County, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant is Pro Se, of Weiner, Arkansas.  \n \nThe Respondents  were represented by Mr. Lee  J.  Muldrow,  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 August 26, 2025.  A hearing on the motion was conducted on November 14, 2025, in Jonesboro, \nArkansas.  Claimant, according to Commission file is Pro Se, failed to appear at the hearing.  \nThe Claimant worked for the Respondent/Employer as a sanitation worker. The date for \nClaimant’s  alleged  injury  was  on April 26,   2024. This   incident   was   reported   to   the \nRespondent/Employer on the  same  day. Admitted  into  evidence  was Respondents’ Exhibit 1, \n\nMCCORKLE, AWCC No. H403176 \n \n2 \n \npleadings,  and  correspondence,  consisting  of 9 pages,  and Commission  Ex. 1, pleadings, \ncorrespondence, and U.S. Mail return receipts, consisting of 10 pages, as discussed infra. \nThe record reflects on May 14, 2024, a Form AR-C was filed by Claimants then-attorney, \nMark Peoples, purporting that Claimant sustained injuries to her back, right knee, and right hip. \nMay 17, 2024, a Form AR-1 purporting that Claimant’s injuries occurred when she slipped while \ncarrying cans downstairs. On July 31, 2024, a Form AR-2 was filed neither accepting or denying \ncompensability. Claimant’s then-attorney  filed  for  a  change-of-physician and  the  request  was \ngranted  on  June  17,  2024, from Dr.  Roger  Troxel  to  Dr.  Dominic  Maggio. On  June 24,  2025, \nClaimant’s then-attorney filed a motion to withdraw as Claimant’s attorney. The Full Commission \ngranted Mr. People’s motion on July 25, 2025.  \nRespondents filed a Motion to Dismiss due to Claimant’s failure to prosecute his claim on \nAugust 26, 2025. The Claimant was sent, on September 2, 2025, notice of the Motion to Dismiss, \nvia certified  and  regular  U.S.  Mail,  to  his last  known  address.  The  certified motion notice  was \nclaimed by Claimant as noted on the September 15, 2025, return receipt. This notice was also sent \nregular U.S. Mail and did not return to the Commission. Despite this, the Claimant did not respond \nto  the  Motion,  in  writing,  as  required. Thus,  in  accordance  with  applicable  Arkansas  law,  the \nClaimant was mailed due and proper legal notice of Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss hearing date \nat her current address of record via the United States Postal Service (USPS), First Class Certified \nMail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular First-Class Mail, on October 1, 2025. The certified \nnotice was claimed as noted by the October 6, 2025, return receipt. Likewise, the hearing notice \nsent regular First-Class was not returned to the Commission. The hearing took place on November \n14, 2025. And as mentioned before, the Claimant did not show up to the hearing. \n \n\nMCCORKLE, AWCC No. H403176 \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 November  14, \n2025, 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: \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 claimed by Claimant, per the return postal notice bearing the October 6, 2025, date. \nThus, I find by the preponderance of the evidence that reasonable notice was given to the Claimant.  \n\nMCCORKLE, AWCC No. H403176 \n \n4 \n \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 May 14, 2025. Since then, she has failed to request a bona fide hearing. Therefore, I do \nfind by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has failed to prosecute her claim. Thus, \nRespondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \n \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. H403176 MELISHA D. MCCORKLE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT FRITO LAY, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT INDEMNITY INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA, CARRIER RESPONDENT SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED DECEMBER 17, 2025 Hearing conducted on Friday, November 14, 20...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:33:51.484Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H403176-2025-12-17","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/McCorkle_Melisha_H403176_20251217.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}