Patricia Lee vs. Goodwill Industries Of Ark Inc

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, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (the Commission), Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Steven Porch, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. The Claimant is Pro Se, of Little Rock, Arkansas. The Respondents were represented by Mr. Jarrod Parrish, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. I. BACKGROUND This matter comes before the Commission on a Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondents on January 16, 2026. A hearing on the motion was conducted on March 31, 2026, in Little Rock, Arkansas. Claimant, according to Commission file is Pro Se, failed to appear at the hearing. The Claimant worked for the Respondent/Employer’s crew team. The date for Claimant’s alleged injury was on November 20, 2023. This incident was reported to the Respondent/Employer on the same date. Admitted into evidence was Respondents’ Exhibit 1, pleadings, and correspondence, consisting of 10 pages, and Commission Ex. 1, emails, and U.S. Mail return receipts, consisting of 6 pages, as discussed infra.

LEE, AWCC No. H307928 2 The record reflects on December 6, 2023, a Form AR-C was filed by Claimant purporting that Claimant sustained injuries to her back, neck, left leg, left arm and chest when she mis stepped due to a cart obstruction in the walkway and falling on her face. On December 11, 2023, a Form AR-1 was filed with the Commission noting that Claimant’s injuries occurred when she placed an item at a station, turned around, and tripped over a cart. Also on December 11, 2023, a Form AR- 2 was filed accepting compensability for the left foot/ankle strain and left forearm abrasion. On December 13, 2023, an amended Form AR-2 was filed denying compensability of Claimant’s injuries. The Respondents filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution on January 16, 2026. The Claimant was sent, on February 4, 2026, notice of the Motion to Dismiss, via certified and regular U.S. Mail, to his last known address. The certified motion notice was not claimed by Claimant as noted on the March 2, 2026, return receipt. This delivery service was to the Commission itself. This notice was also sent regular U.S. Mail and likewise returned to the Commission. As a result, the Claimant did not respond to the Motion, in writing, as required. Nevertheless, in accordance with applicable Arkansas law, the Claimant was mailed due and proper legal notice of Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss hearing date to her current address of record via the United States Postal Service (USPS), First Class Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular First-Class Mail, on February 27, 2026. The certified notice was not claimed as noted by the March 10, 2026, return receipt. Likewise, the hearing notice sent regular First-Class was returned to the Commission. The hearing took place on March 31, 2026. And as mentioned before, the Claimant did not show up to the hearing.

LEE, AWCC No. H307928 3 II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW After reviewing the record as a whole and other matters properly before the Commission, I hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): 1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. 2. The Claimant and Respondents both had reasonable notice of the March 31, 2026, hearing. 3. Respondents have proven by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has failed to prosecute his claim under 11 C.A.R. §25-110(d) (formerly AWCC Rule 099.13). 4. The Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. 5. This claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice. III. DISCUSSION 11 C.A.R. §25-110(d) provides: Upon meritorious application to the Commission from either party in an action pending before the Commission, requesting that the claim be dismissed for want of prosecution, the Commission may, upon reasonable notice to all parties, enter an order dismissing the claim for want of prosecution. See generally Johnson v. Triple T Foods, 55 Ark. App. 83, 85, 929 S.W.2d 730 (1996). Consistent with 11 C.A.R. §25-110(d), the Commission scheduled and conducted a hearing, with reasonable notice, on the Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss. The certified hearing notice was not claimed by Claimant, per the return postal notice bearing the March 10, 2026, date. The Claimant has a duty to provide the Commission with her most current address. The Claimant

LEE, AWCC No. H307928 4 has failed to do so. But sending notices to Claimant’s last known address of record is reasonable. Thus, I find by the preponderance of the evidence that reasonable notice was given to the Claimant. Furthermore, 11 C.A.R. §25-110(d) allows the Commission, upon meritorious application, to dismiss an action pending before it due to a want of prosecution. The Claimant filed his Form AR-C on December 6, 2023. Since then, she has failed to request a bona fide hearing. Therefore, I do find by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has failed to prosecute her claim. Thus, Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. CONCLUSION Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted, and Claimant’s claim is dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. ________________________________ STEVEN PORCH Administrative Law Judge