578 S.W.3d 296
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- Michael Myers, an employee of Arkansas Steel Associates, LLC (ASA), died on February 19, 2014 when molten metal engulfed him; ASA's insurer is paying death benefits to his widow, Mary Myers.
- Mary Myers sued in White County Circuit Court (May 2016) naming, among others, ASA and several parent/owner companies (Sumitomo entities and Yamato Kogyo entities); the circuit court transferred part of the dispute to the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission (the Commission).
- Parties stipulated that the parent companies were principals/stockholders (owners) of ASA but had separate corporate existence and performed none of the employer functions (no hiring, payroll, supervision, or on-site employees present at the accident).
- The Commission concluded the parent companies were "party-employers acting within the employer-shareholder role" and thus immune from tort suits under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-105(a); it found other named defendants were third parties.
- Myers appealed, arguing (1) the exclusive-remedy statute requires an actual employer relationship (so passive parent companies are not immune) and (2) applying § 11-9-105(a) to owners who lack an employment relationship violates the Arkansas Constitution.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission: it read § 11-9-105(a) to make principals and stockholders statutory employers for exclusivity purposes, and held the statute constitutional as applied here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parent corporations (principals/stockholders) are barred from tort suit by the exclusive-remedy provision (Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-105(a)) | Myers: immunity requires an actual employer-employee relationship; parents were passive owners and not employers | Parents: statute makes any principal/stockholder of an employer immune regardless of whether they function as the employee's actual employer | Court: parents who are principals/stockholders of the employer are statutory "employers" under § 11-9-105(a) and thus immune here; Commission's finding supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether applying § 11-9-105(a) to parent owners who did not perform employer functions violates Ark. Const. art. V, § 32 (Amend. 26) and related constitutional protections | Myers: statute as applied denies her constitutional right to a remedy because parents lacked an employment relationship with decedent | Parents: Legislature may define who is an "employer" under its constitutional authority to enact workers' compensation laws | Court: statute is constitutional as applied here because the General Assembly can define statutory employers; parents' ownership sufficed to create an employment relationship for exclusivity purposes |
| Whether other non-owner defendants are third parties subject to tort suits | Myers: seeks to sue various equipment/crane-related defendants in tort | Defendants: those who are not principals/stockholders are third parties under § 11-9-410(a) | Court: Commission correctly held the other named defendants are third parties and not entitled to employer immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- VanWagoner v. Beverly Enters., 334 Ark. 12 (Ark. 1998) (Commission has original exclusive jurisdiction on exclusive-remedy questions)
- McCoy v. Walker, 317 Ark. 86 (Ark. 1994) (rule on qualifying phrases applying to last antecedent)
- Elam v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 344 Ark. 555 (Ark. 2001) (claims against an employer for injury or death are limited to workers' compensation remedies)
- Craven v. Fulton Sanitation Servs., Inc., 361 Ark. 390 (Ark. 2005) (purpose and effect of workers' compensation statutes shifting risk)
- Brown v. Finney, 326 Ark. 691 (Ark. 1996) (employees trade tort remedies for certainty under compensation scheme)
- Hendrix v. Alcoa, Inc., 2016 Ark. 453 (Ark. 2016) (narrow view of exclusivity; exceptions where Act does not provide a remedy)
- Stapleton v. M.D. Limbaugh Constr. Co., 333 Ark. 381 (Ark. 1998) (striking § 11-9-105(a) immunity as applied to prime contractor lacking statutory employment relationship)
- Baldwin Co. v. Maner, 224 Ark. 348 (Ark. 1954) (Legislature may statutorily define who is an employer)
- Automated Conveyor Sys. v. Hill, 362 Ark. 215 (Ark. 2005) (injury not covered by the Act allows tort claim)
- ACW, Inc. v. Weiss, 329 Ark. 302 (Ark. 1997) (statutes are presumed constitutional; challenger bears burden)