Edmisten v. Bull Shoals Landing
2014 Ark. 89
| Ark. | 2014Background
- Edmisten appeals a denial of workers’ compensation benefits after an explosion while cutting barrel tops at Bull Shoals Landing; marijuana metabolites were found in Edmisten’s system, triggering a statutory presumption that the accident was substantially occasioned by drug use.
- The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission adopted the ALJ’s findings denying benefits, based on the presumption and the credibility determinations that Edmisten failed to rebut the link between marijuana use and the injury.
- Alleged procedural and structural constitutional challenges to decisional independence of ALJs and the Commission were raised but not reached due to reversal on the merits.
- The ALJ credited Eastwold and Aaron about the instruction to use an air chisel and discounted Edmisten/Prock’s testimony; the Commission affirmed this reasoning in a 2-1 decision.
- The majority reverses, remands for benefits, and vacates the court of appeals’ opinion; a dissent would affirm on substantial-evidence grounds, largely on Prock-related testimony and the invalidity of the presumption interpretation.
- This companion case is related to Prock v. Bull Shoals Boat Landing, decided the same day.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Presumption rebuttal by Edmisten proof | Edmisten argues he rebutted the presumption. | Bull Shoals contends the presumption remained unrebutted by Edmisten. | Edmisten rebutted the presumption; Commission’s denial not supported by substantial evidence. |
| Substantial-evidence standard and witness credibility | Edmisten contends the ALJ/Commission arbitrarily disregarded testimony supporting non-impaired status. | Bull Shoals asserts credibility determinations supported the denial. | No; the Commission’s weight given to testimony was not adequately supported, requiring reversal. |
| Constitutional structure and separation of powers | Edmisten contends decisional independence was compromised. | Respondents argue no necessary reach of constitutional issues. | Not reached; reversed on merits, so Court declines ruling on this point. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ester v. Nat’l Home Ctrs., Inc., 335 Ark. 356 (1998) (substantial-evidence review; burden on employee to rebut presumption)
- ERC Contractor Yard & Sales v. Robertson, 335 Ark. 63 (1998) (presumption governs whether not substantially occasioned by drug use)
- Titan Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Shipley, 257 Ark. 278 (1974) (preponderance of evidence standard explained)
- Hudak-Lee v. Baxter Cnty. Reg’l Hosp., 2011 Ark. 31 (2011) (appellate deferential review of Commission credibility findings)
- Pickens-Bond Constr. Co. v. Case, 266 Ark. 323 (1979) (definition of preponderance of the evidence; weight not quantity of witnesses)
- Pack v. Little Rock Convention Ctr. & Visitors Bureau, 2013 Ark. 186 (2013) (procedural posture for review when case originated in this court)