607 S.W.3d 176
Ark. Ct. App.2020Background
- On January 13, 2016, Leroy Calhoun (part‑time Meals on Wheels driver) suffered severe injuries in a van rollover and later reached MMI on February 27, 2017, with a 24% whole‑body impairment and restrictions: sedentary/sit‑down work, no driving or carrying.
- AAA (employer) sent communications after MMI: a March 3, 2017 fax stating AAA could accommodate restrictions and had work available, and a June 15, 2017 letter asking Calhoun to contact an occupational‑health nurse about beginning light duty.
- Calhoun did not return to work; he testified he was in too much pain and had incontinence issues and did not ask AAA for specific job duties or pay information when told light duty was available.
- The ALJ awarded Calhoun 60% wage‑loss disability (in addition to the 24% impairment). The full Commission reversed, finding AAA had made a bona fide offer of employment at equal or greater wages and that Calhoun failed to rebut that offer.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the Commission, holding the record did not show an actual, specific job offer or any evidence of wages for the offered work, so AAA failed to carry its burden under Ark. Code Ann. § 11‑9‑522.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Calhoun) | Defendant's Argument (AAA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AAA extended a bona fide, reasonably obtainable offer of employment under § 11‑9‑522(b)(2) | Communications were speculative, no specific job or pay was identified; the employer conditioned the offer on claimant contacting them | Employer made two offers (March fax and June letter) and offered light‑duty work (greeter) within restrictions; claimant rejected the offers | Reversed Commission: no substantial evidence of an actual offer — employer failed to identify a specific job or wages |
| Whether employer needed to specify job duties and pay to constitute a bona fide offer | Yes; an offer must identify an actual job and pay — speculative or conditional communications are insufficient | Offer need not spell out every detail; extending availability of restricted work suffices | Court held specificity required here; lack of job description and wage evidence fatal to finding of bona fide offer |
| Whether the proposed position (greeter) was within claimant’s capabilities | Greeter would require physical tasks and quasi‑security duties beyond claimant’s pain/incontinence limits | Employer contended the greeter job fit sedentary restrictions and could be accommodated | Court noted the greeter position was not described in employer communications until hearing; therefore employer did not prove a bona fide, performable offer |
Key Cases Cited
- Parker v. Atl. Research Corp., 189 S.W.3d 449 (deferential substantial‑evidence standard on appeal)
- Parker v. Comcast Cable Corp., 269 S.W.3d 391 (appellate review of Commission credibility findings)
- Lee v. Alcoa Extrusion, Inc., 201 S.W.3d 449 (definition and purpose of wage‑loss factor)
- Cross v. Crawford Cty. Mem’l Hosp., 923 S.W.2d 886 (no bona fide offer where job was speculative/future and pay not shown)
- Wal‑Mart Assocs., Inc. v. Keys, 423 S.W.3d 683 (employee must be capable of performing the job for it to be a bona fide offer)
- Redd v. Blytheville Sch. Dist. No. 5, 446 S.W.3d 643 (Commission authority to increase impairment rating based on wage‑loss factors)