Curtis v. Lemna, 2014 Ark. 377

Background

On Aug. 8, 2007, William Curtis (finance director) and Michael Lemna (sales operations) attended a Dial-sponsored sales meeting in Arkansas that included a company-paid “team-building” golf outing.
During the outing Lemna drove a golf cart over a retaining wall; Curtis was ejected and injured his shoulder.
Curtis received Arizona workers’ compensation benefits, then sued Lemna in Benton County, Arkansas, alleging negligence. Lemna moved to dismiss, asserting co-employee immunity under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-105 and that the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (the Commission) has exclusive jurisdiction to decide applicability of the Act.
The circuit court dismissed without prejudice; Curtis then submitted stipulated issues to the Commission (not seeking Arkansas benefits) asking whether the Act applied, whether the men were acting within the scope of employment, and whether Lemna had immunity.
The ALJ and the full Commission found (1) the Commission had jurisdiction, (2) the golf outing and the golf-cart operation were within the scope of employment, and (3) Lemna was a co-employee acting as an arm of the employer and therefore immune. The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Arkansas Supreme Court granted review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Commission jurisdiction to decide § 11-9-105 immunity	Curtis: Commission lacked jurisdiction because he already obtained Arizona benefits and did not seek Arkansas compensation	Lemna: Commission has exclusive, original jurisdiction to decide whether the Act applies and to resolve immunity defenses	Held: Commission had exclusive jurisdiction; jurisdiction proper because Curtis sought a Commission determination on applicability of the Act
Whether the golf outing/accident was within scope of employment	Curtis: Golfing was recreational, not advancing employer interests; not within course and scope	Lemna: Event was a Dial-sponsored, agenda-listed team-building activity advancing employer interests; within scope	Held: Substantial evidence supports that the meeting/golf outing advanced employer interests and the injury occurred within the scope of employment
Whether Lemna, a co-employee, is immune under § 11-9-105	Curtis: Lemna was not charged with providing a safe workplace during a voluntary recreational event; thus was a third party	Lemna: While a co-employee, he acted as the employer’s agent by operating the employer-paid vehicle and was charged with providing a safe workplace	Held: Substantial evidence supports extending employer immunity to Lemna because he was performing the employer’s nondelegable duty to provide a safe workplace while operating the vehicle
Constitutionality of extending employer immunity to co-employees	Curtis: Extension violates article 5, § 32 of the Arkansas Constitution	Lemna: Miller II controls; extension is consistent with constitutional limits	Held: Court declined to revisit issue under Miller II and followed precedent upholding extension of immunity

Key Cases Cited

VanWagoner v. Beverly Enters., 970 S.W.2d 810 (Ark. 1998) (Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to determine applicability of Act)
Carter v. Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc., 242 S.W.3d 616 (Ark. 2006) (expertise and uniformity justify Commission's exclusive jurisdiction)
McCarthy v. Pulaski County Circuit Court, 235 S.W.3d 497 (Ark. 2006) (Commission must decide whether a person is an employer for immunity purposes)
Williams v. Johnson Custom Homes, 288 S.W.3d 607 (Ark. 2008) (states with a legitimate interest may apply their workers’ comp rules separately or successively)
Brown v. [Unknown Employer] , 932 S.W.2d 769 (Ark. 1996) (co-employee performing employer’s duty to provide safe workplace is immune)
Miller v. Enders (Miller II), 425 S.W.3d 723 (Ark. 2013) (reaffirmed extension of co-employee immunity when acting as arm of employer)
King v. Cardin, 319 S.W.2d 214 (Ark. 1958) (original rule that a negligent co-employee may be a third party)
Simmons First Natl. Bank v. Thompson, 686 S.W.2d 415 (Ark. 1985) (supervisory employee immune for failure to provide safe workplace)