Karen Talburt vs. Black Sheep Egg Co. LLC

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’ Compensation Commission (the Commission), Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Steven Porch, in Jonesboro, Craighead County, Arkansas. The Claimant is Pro Se, of Walnut Ridge, Arkansas. The Respondents were represented by Mr. Guy Alton Wade, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. I. BACKGROUND This matter comes before the Commission on a Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondents on August 18, 2025. A hearing on the motion was conducted on November 14, 2025, in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Claimant, according to Commission file is Pro Se, failed to appear at the hearing. The Claimant worked for the Respondent/Employer as a sanitation worker. The date for Claimant’s alleged injury was on November 20, 2024. This incident was reported to the Respondent/Employer on the same day. Admitted into evidence was Respondents’ Exhibit 1, pleadings, and correspondence, consisting of 18 pages, and Commission Ex. 1, pleadings, correspondence, and U.S. Mail return receipts, consisting of 13 pages, as discussed infra.

TALBURT, AWCC No. H407861 2 The record reflects on December 4, 2024, a Form AR-1 purporting that Claimant was cleaning when her hair was caught in rolling brushes and eventually ripped out. This incident resulted in injuries to Claimant’s eye socket and nose. Also on December 4, 2024, a Form AR-2 was filed noting the issuance of an indemnity payment. On December 6, 2024, an amended Form AR-2 was filed accepting compensability. On January 4, 2025, a Form AR-C was filed by Claimants then-attorney, Mark Peoples, purporting that Claimant sustained injuries to her head, neck, nose, and eyes. On July 14, 2025, Claimant’s then-attorney filed a motion to withdraw as Claimant’s attorney. The Full Commission granted Mr. People’s motion on July 30, 2025. Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss due to Claimant’s failure to prosecute his claim on August 18, 2025. The Claimant was sent, on August 20, 2025, notice of the Motion to Dismiss, via certified and regular U.S. Mail, to his last known address. The certified motion notice was claimed by Claimant as noted on the August 25, 2025, return receipt. This notice was also sent regular U.S. Mail and did not return to the Commission. Despite this, the Claimant did not respond to the Motion, in writing, as required. Thus, in accordance with applicable Arkansas law, the Claimant was mailed due and proper legal notice of Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss hearing date at 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 September 18, 2025. The certified notice was not claimed as noted by the October 3, 2025, return receipt. Likewise, the hearing notice sent regular First-Class was not returned to the Commission. The hearing took place on November 14, 2025. And as mentioned before, the Claimant did not show up to the hearing.

TALBURT, AWCC No. H407861 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 November 14, 2025, hearing. 3. Respondents have proven by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has failed to prosecute her 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 October 3, 2025, date. However, the notice sent First-Class U.S. Mail to the last known address did not return to the

TALBURT, AWCC No. H407861 4 Commission. 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 January 4, 2025. 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