Reynolds Metal Co. v. Circuit Court of Clark County
2013 Ark. 287
| Ark. | 2013Background
- Reynolds seeks a writ of prohibition challenging a circuit court order denying its motion to dismiss Kirksey's tort claims, arguing the Workers' Compensation Act provides exclusive remedy.
- Kirksey, employed 1957–1989, filed a 2009 occupational-disease claim with the Commission alleging asbestos exposure caused cancer; stipulations identified last injurious exposure before 1989 and bladder cancer diagnosed in 2004.
- The law judge found the asbestos-based claim time-barred under asbestosis limitations; Kirksey did not appeal to the full Commission and instead filed suit in circuit court asserting multiple tort theories.
- Circuit court held that the Act covers only occupational diseases within the statute of limitations and that claims manifesting after expiration may still be heard in circuit court; Reynolds sought prohibition.
- Majority grants prohibition, concluding the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether Kirksey's disability arises from an occupational disease covered by the Act; a crucial fact is missing—the time of disablement.
- Dissent argues the Commission already adjudicated coverage and timing, and the circuit court’s question is a legal issue about exclusive jurisdiction that should foreclose relitigation before the Commission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit court lacked jurisdiction due to exclusive remedy doctrine | Kirksey argues Act does not bar common-law claims when the disease manifests after limitations. | Reynolds contends Commission exclusive jurisdiction over coverage; circuit court cannot adjudicate. | Writ granted; circuit court lacked jurisdiction; Commission must decide coverage first. |
| Whether occupational disease coverage must be decided by the Commission before tort claims | Kirksey insists his bladder cancer from chemical exposure is not covered and may proceed in circuit court. | Reynolds argues exclusive Commission determination of coverage applies before any circuit-court action. | Writ granted; Commission must determine coverage before circuit court may proceed. |
| Whether timing of disablement is a fact for Commission to determine under exclusivity | Kirksey's disablement date is stipulated as July 1, 2004, after last exposure; material to limitations. | Reynolds emphasizes the record lacks a disablement time; Commission must resolve. | Writ granted; the Commission must resolve the timing/disablement question in the first instance. |
| Whether the record shows a single contemplated claim or multiple, affecting jurisdiction | Kirksey contends the circuit court treated the claim as post-exposure disability arising from coal tar pitch. | Reynolds contends the claim falls under occupational-disease coverage only if presented to the Commission. | Writ granted; the Commission must determine the applicable occupational-disease claim first. |
| Whether the circuit court’s decision is reviewable where the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction | Kirksey contends the circuit court properly addressed enforceability of statutes of limitations. | Reynolds asserts prohibition is appropriate to prevent improper encroachment on Commission powers. | Writ granted; prohibition preserves Commission-exclusive jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- VanWagoner v. Beverly Enterprises, 334 Ark. 12 (1998) (exclusive original jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction in workers’ compensation matters)
- Int’l Paper Co. v. Clark Cnty. Cir. Ct., 289 S.W.3d 103 (Ark. 2008) (limits and exclusivity of Commission review in jurisdictional questions)
- Erin, Inc. v. White Cnty. Cir. Ct., 253 S.W.3d 444 (Ark. 2007) (jurisdictional scope of workers’ compensation proceedings)
- Coonrod v. Seay, 241 S.W.3d 252 (Ark. 2006) (limits of exclusive jurisdiction in workers’ compensation context)
- Moses v. Hanna’s Candle Co., 234 S.W.3d 872 (Ark. 2006) (timing and scope of occupational-disease claims)
- Stocks v. Affiliated Foods Sw., Inc., 213 S.W.3d 3 (Ark. 2005) (statutory limitations in occupational-disease claims)
- Merez v. Squire Court Ltd. P’ship, 114 S.W.3d 184 (Ark. 2003) (jurisdictional framework for workers’ compensation claims)
- WENCO Franchise Mgmt., Inc. v. Chamness, 13 S.W.3d 903 (Ark. 2000) (exclusive jurisdiction in workers’ compensation matters)
- Hill v. Patterson, 855 S.W.2d 297 (Ark. 1993) (statutory timing considerations in workers’ compensation)
- Ward Sch. Bus Mfg. v. Fowler, 547 S.W.2d 394 (Ark. 1977) (appellate review limitations concerning Commission determinations)
- Goston (Estate of) v. Ford Motor Co., 898 S.W.2d 471 (Ark. 1995) (res judicata; final order considerations in workers’ compensation context)