638 S.W.3d 11
Ark. Ct. App.2021Background
- In July 2014 Don "Randy" Jackson, a CDL holder, was killed unloading a log while driving for Smiley Sawmill; there is evidence the truck may have been overloaded.
- Jackson’s widow sued in circuit court alleging Jackson was an independent contractor; Smiley Sawmill had the case transferred to the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission to decide employment status.
- An ALJ and the Commission initially found Jackson was an employee; this court in Jackson I remanded for the Commission to determine whether the doctrine of inconsistent positions barred Smiley from asserting employee status given evidence the employer treated drivers as independent contractors for tax/insurance reporting.
- On remand the Commission reviewed testimony (Timothy Smiley and payroll secretary Deborah LaValle): truck drivers were omitted from quarterly wage reports and 1099s were promised; the workers’ compensation application was partly filled by an agent; payroll omissions were characterized as repeated mistakes and lack of sophistication, not intentional fraud.
- The Commission concluded inconsistent-positions estoppel did not apply because there was no intent to manipulate the system; it reaffirmed that Jackson was an employee covered by the employer’s workers’ compensation policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the doctrine of inconsistent positions estops Smiley from asserting Jackson was an employee | Jackson: Smiley consistently treated drivers as independent contractors for tax/insurance and acted for financial benefit; intent can be inferred from pattern | Smiley: omissions were inadvertent, due to lack of sophistication and administrative mistakes; no intent to manipulate | Commission affirmed on remand and appellate court held substantial evidence supports finding no intent; doctrine does not apply |
| Whether the Commission violated this court’s mandate / law-of-the-case by declining to apply the doctrine on remand | Jackson: prior findings foreclose relitigation and mandate required applying inconsistent-positions estoppel | Smiley: Commission was required to reconsider and make factual findings on estoppel; remand allowed factfinding | Court held remand was followed properly; prior opinion did not decide estoppel and Commission acted within mandate |
| Whether Jackson was an employee (exclusive remedy) | Jackson: argues not covered because employer treated him as independent contractor for reporting | Smiley: workers’ compensation policy existed; multi-factor test supports employee status | Jackson did not challenge Commission’s employee-status finding on appeal; court affirmed exclusivity and Commission’s factual findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Dupwe v. Wallace, 140 S.W.3d 464 (Ark. 2004) (doctrine of inconsistent positions applies only to intentional contradictions and is broader than judicial estoppel)
- Jackson v. Smiley Sawmill, 576 S.W.3d 43 (Ark. App. 2019) (prior appeal remanding for Commission to address inconsistent-positions issue)
- VanWagoner v. Beverly Enters., 970 S.W.2d 810 (Ark. 1998) (Commission has exclusive original jurisdiction to decide whether tort action is barred by exclusivity doctrine)
- Truman Arnold Co. v. Miller Cnty. Cir. Ct., 513 S.W.3d 838 (Ark. 2017) (employer who secures workers’ compensation is immune from tort liability)
- Honeysuckle v. Curtis H. Stout, Inc., 368 S.W.3d 64 (Ark. 2010) (appellate review defers to Commission’s credibility and weight determinations)
- Adams v. Howard, 436 S.W.3d 473 (Ark. App. 2014) (elements of judicial estoppel outlined)