Hill v. Treadaway
2014 Ark. App. 185
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- On August 31, 2008, appellee (a mechanic employed one week) accompanied co-worker Tyler on a service call; while airing a large truck tire it exploded, severely injuring appellee who required med-flight and surgery.
- Appellee filed a workers’ compensation claim; employer (appellant) was investigated and found noncompliant for lack of workers’ compensation insurance and fined.
- At the ALJ hearing, appellee and Tyler testified that Tyler called for permission to take appellee and that appellant approved; appellant testified he denied permission, had a policy limiting service calls to one person, and was unaware appellee went.
- Appellant made informal payments to appellee’s wife after the incident but stopped when she hired counsel.
- The ALJ denied benefits, but the Full Commission reversed, finding appellee sustained a compensable injury and was entitled to temporary total disability and medical benefits based on witness credibility.
- On appeal, this court reviewed for substantial evidence and affirmed the Commission, deferring to its credibility determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellee’s injury was compensable (arose out of and in the course of employment) | Appellee: was performing employment services and advancing employer’s interest on the call with employer’s approval | Appellant: appellee was off-duty and outside time/space boundaries; appellant had not authorized appellee to attend and had a one-person policy | Court: Commission’s credibility finding that appellee was advancing employer’s interests was supported by substantial evidence; affirmed compensability |
| Whether appellee is entitled to temporary total-disability and medical benefits | Appellee: injuries required medical care and time off work, thus benefits due | Appellant: denies compensability so denies entitlement to benefits | Court: Commission’s award of temporary total-disability and reasonably necessary medical treatment affirmed |
| Whether employer’s lack of workers’ compensation insurance affects claim | Appellee: employer’s noncompliance noted; employer still liable for valid claims | Appellant: not materially disputed, argued timing and contesting of claim unclear | Court: employer’s noncompliance was in record and Commission’s findings unaffected; liability determined on compensability and credibility |
| Standard of review on appeal | Appellee: Commission’s factual/credibility findings entitled to deference | Appellant: disputes Commission’s factual findings | Court: applied substantial-evidence review and deferred to Commission’s credibility resolution; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Flynn v. J.B. Hunt Transp., 389 S.W.3d 67 (Ark. Ct. App.) (describing substantial-evidence review in workers’ compensation appeals)
- Texarkana Sch. Dist. v. Conner, 284 S.W.3d 57 (Ark.) (test for whether activity is within time and space boundaries of employment and advances employer’s interest)
- Wood v. Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers, 374 S.W.3d 785 (Ark. Ct. App.) (statutory construction of compensable injury and "employment services")
- Hudak-Lee v. Baxter Cnty. Reg'l Hosp., 378 S.W.3d 77 (Ark.) (deference to workers’ compensation commission on credibility and fact-finding)
- Gingras v. Liberty Bank, 381 S.W.3d 112 (Ark. Ct. App.) (application of employer-interest test and case-specific inquiry)