Hendrix v. Alcoa, Inc.
2016 Ark. 453
| Ark. | 2016Background
- Guy D. Hendrix worked for Alcoa from 1966 until retiring in 1995; diagnosed with mesothelioma in June 2012 and filed a workers’ compensation claim in Sept. 2012.
- An administrative law judge found Hendrix’s compensation claim time-barred under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(a)(2)(B) (asbestosis/asbestos claims must have disablement within 3 years of last exposure and be filed within 1 year of disablement); Hendrix did not appeal that ruling.
- Hendrix died in Nov. 2013; his estate filed wrongful-death and survival tort claims against Alcoa in Apr. 2014.
- Alcoa moved to dismiss, invoking the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive-remedy provision (§ 11-9-105(a)); the circuit court dismissed the estate’s claims with prejudice.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court accepted certification, denied Alcoa’s motion to dismiss the appeal, and considered whether the exclusive-remedy bar applies when the Act extinguished the worker’s compensation remedy before the disease manifested.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the exclusive-remedy provision bars the estate’s tort claims when the Act’s statute of repose extinguished any workers’ compensation remedy before the disease manifested | Hendrix’s estate: when the Act extinguishes remedy before a claim accrues, the Act provides no remedy and exclusive remedy does not bar tort suit | Alcoa: the Act generally covers occupational diseases (including asbestos) and § 11-9-702(b)’s temporal limits only limit recovery, not coverage; exclusive remedy still bars tort claims | Court: Affirmed dismissal. The Act covers asbestos-related disease (so a remedy exists under the Act in law), and a temporal bar (statute of repose) does not mean the Act provides no remedy; exclusive remedy applies |
| Whether an administrative-law judge’s unappealed ruling deprives the circuit court of jurisdiction to hear the civil suit | Estate: prior administrative ruling does not preclude circuit jurisdiction if Act provides no remedy | Alcoa: argued procedural bar based on administrative record | Court: Denied Alcoa’s separate motion to dismiss the appeal; failure to appeal ALJ order does not create a jurisdictional barrier to this court’s review |
Key Cases Cited
- Elam v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 344 Ark. 555 (Ark.) (exclusive-remedy provision eliminates employer tort liability where Act covers injury)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Smith, 329 Ark. 336 (Ark.) (exclusive remedy does not bar circuit claims for injuries not covered by the Act, e.g., nonphysical emotional distress)
- Davis v. Dillmeier Enters., Inc., 330 Ark. 545 (Ark.) (Act did not provide remedy for disability-based employment-discrimination claim; tort/other claims permitted)
- Automated Conveyor Sys., Inc. v. Hill, 362 Ark. 215 (Ark.) (injury not within Act’s coverage permits tort suit in circuit court)
- Porocel Corp. v. Circuit Ct. of Saline County, 2013 Ark. 172 (Ark.) (statute-of-limitations vs. statute-of-repose distinction; covered injury but claimant failed to file within limitations)
- Ray & Sons Masonry Contractors, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 353 Ark. 201 (Ark.) (statute of repose creates substantive cut-off of liability)
- CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 134 S. Ct. 2175 (U.S. Sup. Ct.) (distinguishes statutes of limitations from statutes of repose and explains policy rationales)