Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. Gerard
2017 Ark. App. 523
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- Gerard sustained a compensable back injury; AG&F accepted 16% impairment and 10% wage loss, while two doctors later assessed 23% impairment and AG&F accepted the higher rating.
- ALJ awarded 35% wage-loss disability with an offset credit for previously paid 10% wage loss; the ALJ allowed a 25% contingency fee on indemnity benefits, with half paid by Gerard and half by AG&F as required by 11-9-715.
- Gerard later argued that APERS offset depleted payable benefits, so his half of the attorney fees should be deducted from the payable benefits (which were effectively exhausted).
- AG&F maintained it had paid its half and that Gerard should pay his half out of pocket per §11-9-715(a)(2)(B)(i).
- The ALJ concluded that the claimant’s half-fee deduction from benefits precedes the 11-9-411 offset, and the Commission affirmed.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that §11-9-715 does not require 100% payment by the employer and that §11-9-715 does not have priority over the §11-9-411 offset; the decision stated the applicable interpretation is plain and must be reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must AG&F pay all attorney fees due under §11-9-715 when an §11-9-411 offset reduces payable benefits? | Gerard | AG&F | No; 11-9-715 does not require 100% by employer; offset applies first |
| Does §11-9-715 have priority over §11-9-411 when benefits are offset? | Gerard | AG&F | No priority; offset governs payable benefits; not overridden by 11-9-715 |
Key Cases Cited
- J.M.E. v. Valley View Agri Sys., Inc., 2016 Ark. App. 531 (Ark. App. 2016) (statutory interpretation and standard of review guidance)
- Brigman v. City of West Memphis, 2013 Ark. App. 66 (Ark. App. 2013) (persuasive agency interpretation; deference in statutory construction)
- Jordan v. Atl. Cas. Ins. Co., 344 Ark. 81 (2001) (public policy and legislative intent considerations)
- Ark. Dep't of Econ. Dev. v. William J. Clinton Presidential Found., 364 Ark. 40 (2005) (plain meaning and reconciliation of statutes in interpretation)