Curtis Frisby v. Milbank Manufacturing Co.
688 F.3d 540
8th Cir.2012Background
- Frisby died from a myocardial infarction while working on an assembly line at Milbank in Arkansas; a workers’ compensation claim was filed near the two‑year limit.
- The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission denied benefits after determining Frisby failed to prove a compensable injury and that an accident was the major cause of her harm.
- Curtis Frisby, as administrator, sued Milbank in district court for wrongful death; the district court dismissed as time barred.
- Frisby argued tolling because the workers’ comp claim prevented exercising the tort remedy and also invoked the Arkansas savings statute to revive the claim.
- The district court rejected tolling; the court also rejected the savings statute rationale since the comp denial was merits-based, not a nonsuit.
- The panel affirmed, holding no tolling and no savings statute relief; the action remains time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does pendency of workers’ compensation toll the tort statute? | Frisby contends tolling applies while the Commission pending benefits. | Milbank argues no tolling because the Commission proceedings do not constitute a tolling legal proceeding for the tort action. | No tolling; pending comp claim does not toll the tort statute. |
| Does the savings statute revive a time-barred tort action after comp denial? | Frisby relies on savings statute to revive within one year after nonsuit-like dismissal. | Milbank asserts the comp determination is not a nonsuit; savings statute inapplicable. | Savings statute does not apply; no timely revival. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ragland v. Alpha Aviation, Inc., 285 Ark. 182 (1985) (tolling when legal proceedings prevent exercising remedies)
- VanWagoner v. Beverly Enterprises, 970 S.W.2d 810 (1998) (primary jurisdiction doctrine; commission determines coverage)
- Merez v. Squire Court Ltd. P’ship, 114 S.W.3d 184 (2003) (commission has exclusive jurisdiction to determine applicability of Act)
- Stocks v. Affiliated Foods Sw., Inc., 213 S.W.3d 3 (2005) (remand to seek commission determination rather than dismiss for lack of jurisdiction)
- Int’l Paper Co. v. Clark Cnty. Circuit Court, 289 S.W.3d 103 (2008) (commission exclusive jurisdiction; circuit court wholly without jurisdiction until resolved)
- Carton v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 747 S.W.2d 93 (1988) (savings statute cases where dismissal is without merit, not merits-based)
- United States v. W. Pac. R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 59 (1956) (primary jurisdiction concept in regulatory schemes)
- Aust in v. Centerpoint Energy Arkla, 226 S.W.3d 814 (2006) (primary jurisdiction framework within Arkansas)