{"id":"alj-H407861-2026-02-02","awcc_number":"H407861","decision_date":"2026-02-02","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Karen Talburt","employer_name":"Black Sheep Egg Co. LLC","title":"TALBURT VS. BLACK SHEEP EGG CO. LLC. AWCC# H407861 February 02, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:9","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["neck"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Talburt_Karen_H407861_20260202.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Talburt_Karen_H407861_20260202.pdf","text_length":6233,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H407861 \n \nKAREN S. TALBURT, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nBLACK SHEEP EGG CO. LLC., \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \nTRAVELERS PROP. CAS. OF AMERICA, \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                    RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED FEBRUARY 2, 2026 \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 Walnut Ridge, Arkansas.  \n \nThe Respondents  were represented by Mr. Guy  Alton  Wade,  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 18, 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 November 20,  2024. This  incident  was  reported  to  the \nRespondent/Employer on the  same  day. Admitted  into  evidence  was Respondents’ Exhibit 1, \npleadings,  and  correspondence,  consisting  of 18 pages,  and Commission  Ex. 1, pleadings, \ncorrespondence, and U.S. Mail return receipts, consisting of 13 pages, as discussed infra. \n \n\nTALBURT, AWCC No. H407861 \n \n2 \n \n \nThe  record  reflects  on December 4,  2024,  a  Form  AR-1  purporting  that  Claimant  was \ncleaning when  her  hair  was  caught  in  rolling  brushes  and  eventually  ripped  out.  This  incident \nresulted in injuries to Claimant’s eye socket and nose. Also on December 4, 2024, a Form AR-2 \nwas filed noting the issuance of an indemnity payment. On December 6, 2024, an amended Form \nAR-2  was  filed  accepting  compensability.  On January 4,  2025,  a  Form  AR-C  was  filed  by \nClaimants then-attorney, Mark Peoples, purporting that Claimant sustained injuries to her head, \nneck, nose, and eyes. On July 14, 2025, Claimant’s then-attorney filed a motion to withdraw as \nClaimant’s attorney. The Full Commission granted Mr. People’s motion on July 30, 2025.  \nRespondents filed a Motion to Dismiss due to Claimant’s failure to prosecute his claim on \nAugust 18, 2025. The Claimant was sent, on August 20, 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 August 25,  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 September 18,  2025.  The \ncertified  notice  was not claimed as  noted  by  the October 3,  2025, return receipt. Likewise,  the \nhearing notice sent regular First-Class was not returned to the Commission. The hearing took place \non November 14, 2025. And as mentioned before, the Claimant did not show up to the hearing. \n \n \n\nTALBURT, AWCC No. H407861 \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 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 not claimed by Claimant, per the return postal notice bearing the October 3, 2025, date. \nHowever,  the  notice  sent  First-Class  U.S.  Mail  to  the  last  known  address  did  not  return  to  the \n\nTALBURT, AWCC No. H407861 \n \n4 \n \nCommission. Thus, I find by the preponderance of the evidence that reasonable notice was given \nto 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 January 4, 2025. Since then, she has failed to request a bona fide hearing. Therefore, I \ndo find 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. H407861 KAREN S. TALBURT, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT BLACK SHEEP EGG CO. LLC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TRAVELERS PROP. CAS. OF AMERICA, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 2, 2026 Hearing conducted on Friday, November 14, 2025, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compe...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:31:33.155Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H407861-2026-02-02","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Talburt_Karen_H407861_20260202.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}