{"id":"alj-H501814-2026-03-31","awcc_number":"H501814","decision_date":"2026-03-31","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Shawanna Bailey","employer_name":"Hino Motors Mfg USA, Inc","title":"BAILEY VS. HINO MOTORS MFG USA, INC. AWCC# H501814 March 31, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:10","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Bailey_Shawanna_H501814_20260331.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Bailey_Shawanna_H501814_20260331.pdf","text_length":6556,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H501814 \n \nSHAWANNA BAILEY, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nHINO MOTORS MFG USA, INC., \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \nFIRST LIBERTY INSURANCE CORP., \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                    RESPONDENT  \n \n \nOPINION FILED MARCH 31, 2025 \n \nHearing conducted on Friday, March  6,  2026,  before  the  Arkansas  Workers’ Compensation \nCommission (the Commission), Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Steven Porch, in Forrest City, \nSt. Francis County, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant is Pro Se, of West Memphis, 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 October 14, 2025.  A hearing on the motion was conducted on March 6, 2026, in Forrest City, \nArkansas.  Claimant, according to Commission file is Pro Se, failed to appear at the hearing.  \nThe  Claimant  worked  for  the  Respondent/Employer  as a team  member.  The  date  for \nClaimant’s  alleged  injury  was  on March 13,   2025. This   incident   was   reported   to   the \nRespondent/Employer on March 14, 2025. Admitted into evidence was Respondents’ Exhibit 1, \npleadings, consisting of 3 pages, and Commission Ex. 1, pleadings, correspondence, and U.S. Mail \nreturn receipts, consisting of 17 pages, as discussed infra. \n\nBAILEY, AWCC No. H501814 \n \n2 \n \nThe record reflects on April 9, 2025, a Form AR-C was filed by Claimant purporting that \nClaimant sustained an injury to her left shoulder during a work incident. On March 21, 2025,  a \nForm  AR-1 was  filed purporting  that Claimant  was  doing  normal  operation  but  at  a  faster  rate \nresulting in shoulder pain at the end of the workday. On March 27, 2024, a Form AR-2 was filed \ndisputing that Claimant was injured during the course and scope of employment.   \nOn August 8, 2025, Claimant’s counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. The Full \nCommission granted the motion on August 227, 2025. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss on \nOctober 14, 2025, for failure to prosecute. The Claimant was sent, on October 17, 2025, notice of \nthe Motion to Dismiss, via certified and regular U.S. Mail, to her last known address. The certified \nmotion notice was claimed by Claimant as noted by the return of the certified return receipt dated \nOctober  20,  2025. 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 December 4, 2025. The certified notice was not claimed as noted by the return of \nthe certified letter on January 2, 2026. The hearing notice sent regular First-Class was not returned \nto  the  Commission. The  hearing was  scheduled  for  January  2,  2026.  But  due  to  sickness,  I \ncancelled the hearing.  \nOn January 14, 2026, another Motion to Dismiss hearing notice was sent, and again was \nnot claimed by the Claimant per the return receipt dated January 30, 2026. The notice sent regular \nFirst-Class mail did not return to the Commission. The hearing took place on March 6, 2026. And \nas mentioned before, the Claimant did not show up to the hearing. \n\nBAILEY, AWCC No. H501814 \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 6, 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 \naddress. The Claimant did not do that. Nevertheless, sending notices to the last known address of \n\nBAILEY, AWCC No. H501814 \n \n4 \n \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 April 9, 2025, since then the Claimant has not requested a bona fide full hearing, thus \nfailing 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. H501814 SHAWANNA BAILEY, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT HINO MOTORS MFG USA, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT FIRST LIBERTY INSURANCE CORP., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 31, 2025 Hearing conducted on Friday, March 6, 2026, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:31:26.899Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H501814-2026-03-31","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Bailey_Shawanna_H501814_20260331.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}