J.M.E. v. Valley View Agri Systems, Inc.
2016 Ark. App. 531
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2007 Robert Emmons suffered a compensable catastrophic injury that rendered him permanently and totally disabled; at that time his two minor children (b. 2001 and 2004) lived with and were supported by him.
- Emmons received initial benefits and monthly permanent-total disability payments from the Death & Permanent Total Disability Trust Fund.
- DHS later removed the children; in March 2013 Emmons’ parental rights were terminated; Emmons died of his compensable injury on October 1, 2013.
- The children were adopted on January 2, 2014, with the adoption decree treating them as the adoptive parents’ children from birth (including amended birth certificates).
- On August 20, 2014 the adopted children filed for survivor benefits under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-527; the Workers’ Compensation Commission denied benefits, relying on the adoption statute (Ark. Code Ann. § 9-9-215) to treat the children as strangers to Emmons.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding dependency for survivor benefits is determined as of the time of the injury and the adoption did not terminate dependency under the Workers’ Compensation Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether minor children adopted after the employee’s compensable injury remain dependents for survivor benefits | Children: Dependency is fixed at time of injury per § 11-9-527(h); they were dependent in 2007 so adoption cannot defeat benefits | Commission/Trust Fund: Adoption statute severs legal relationships and makes adopted children strangers to biological parent, so no dependency at time of claim | Reversed: Dependency is determined at time of injury; adoption after injury does not terminate dependency absent grounds within § 11-9-527(d)(2) |
| Whether the Commission may apply adoption law to alter workers’ compensation dependency rules | Children: Workers’ Comp statute is controlling and unambiguous; Commission may not broaden/narrow via other statutes | Commission: Adoption statute explicitly severs legal ties and affects statutory interpretation; it can be applied | Reversed: Workers’ Comp Act controls for dependency; Commission improperly expanded termination grounds by invoking adoption statute |
| Standard of review for this statutory-interpretation dispute | Children: This is a pure question of law decided de novo | Commission: (relied on factual/legal determinations below) | Court: De novo review; facts undisputed, issue is statutory application |
| Proper termination events for child dependency under Workers’ Comp | Children: Termination limited to events in § 11-9-527(d)(2) (age, marriage, student status, incapacity) | Commission: Adoption terminates legal relationship and thus dependency | Held: Only § 11-9-527(d)(2) enumerated events terminate dependency; adoption is not one of them |
Key Cases Cited
- Searcy Farm Supply, LLC v. Merchants & Planters Bank, 369 Ark. 487, 256 S.W.3d 496 (2007) (statutory construction: changes to scope of workers’ compensation are for legislature)
- Kimbell v. Ass’n of Rehab Indus., 366 Ark. 297, 235 S.W.3d 499 (2006) (standard that dependency questions are determined under statute)
- Searcy Farm Supply, LLC v. Merchants & Planters Bank, 369 Ark. 487, 256 S.W.3d 496 (2007) (legislature, not courts or agency, should alter compensation statutes)
- Fordyce Concrete Co. v. Garth, 84 Ark. App. 256, 139 S.W.3d 154 (2003) (dependency is a factual determination reviewed for substantial evidence)
- Inskeep v. Emerson Elec. Co., 64 Ark. App. 101, 983 S.W.2d 132 (1998) (substantial-evidence review of Commission findings)
- Death & Permanent Total Disability Trust Fund v. Branum, 82 Ark. App. 338, 107 S.W.3d 876 (2003) (consideration of both ALJ and Commission decisions on review)
- Lawhon Farm Servs. v. Brown, 60 Ark. App. 64, 958 S.W.2d 538 (1997) (actual dependency requires showing of support or reasonable expectation of support)