Prock v. Bull Shoals Boat Landing, 2014 Ark. 93

On Nov. 1, 2007, claimant Greg Prock and coworker Matt Edmisten used an acetylene torch to cut tops off oil barrels at Bull Shoals Landing; the second barrel exploded and both were injured. Both later tested positive for cannabinoids.
An ALJ found Prock credible, concluded he rebutted the statutory presumption that illegal drugs substantially occasioned the accident, and awarded benefits.
The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (2–1) reversed after de novo review, finding Prock not credible and that he failed to rebut the presumption; one commissioner dissented.
The Court of Appeals remanded for more detailed findings; the Commission issued a second 2–1 opinion again denying benefits.
This court granted review and reversed the Commission, holding the Commission arbitrarily disregarded favorable evidence and that reasonable minds could not find Prock failed to rebut the presumption; the case was remanded for benefits determination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Prock rebutted the statutory presumption that his injury was substantially occasioned by illegal drug use	Prock: no one observed impairment at or before the accident; his denials and corroborating witness testimony suffice to rebut the presumption	Bull Shoals: Prock's denials are inconsistent and uncorroborated; positive drug test shifts burden and evidence supports Commission's credibility findings	Reversed: court held Commission arbitrarily disregarded or mischaracterized evidence favorable to Prock; reasonable minds could not find he failed to rebut the presumption
Whether the Commission may reverse ALJ credibility findings without violating due process	Prock: reversal of ALJ credibility findings by the Commission violates due process and raises constitutional separation-of-powers concerns	Bull Shoals: Commission has authority to review de novo and may reject ALJ credibility findings	Not reached by majority (decision resolved on statutory-presumption issue); prior holdings address this argument

ERC Contractor Yard & Sales v. Robertson, 335 Ark. 63 (Ark. 1998) (interpreting “substantially occasioned” to require a direct causal link in a causation argument)
Tyson Poultry, Inc. v. Narvaiz, 2012 Ark. 118 (Ark. 2012) (appellate standard: affirm Commission if supported by substantial evidence)
Hudak-Lee v. Baxter Cnty. Reg’l Hosp., 2011 Ark. 31 (Ark. 2011) (when this court grants review, case is considered as originally filed here)
Freeman v. Con-Agra Frozen Foods, 344 Ark. 296 (Ark. 2001) (Commission may not arbitrarily disregard testimony or evidence)
Edmisten v. Bull Shoals Landing, 2014 Ark. 89 (Ark. 2014) (companion case decided same date regarding related factual and legal issues)