Tyson Poultry, Inc. v. Narvaiz
2012 Ark. 118
| Ark. | 2012Background
- Appellee Narvaiz sustained a compensable left-shoulder injury and later required surgery, with light-duty work initially available.
- Appellant Tyson Poultry suspended and later terminated Narvaiz for insubordination and gross misconduct, after his misconduct and suspension.
- The ALJ denied Narvaiz temporary-total-disability benefits, wage-loss benefits, and attorney’s fees.
- The Commission reversed, holding termination for misconduct did not prove a refusal of suitable employment under §11-9-526.
- Thomaston held that an employer’s misconduct termination does not amount to a refusal by the employee, supporting ongoing TTDB and wage-loss entitlement.
- Court of Appeals reversed the Commission; this Court granted review and affirmed the Commission, vacating the Court of Appeals’ decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports TTDB beyond April 28, 2008. | Narvaiz remained within healing period and totally incapacitated. | Misconduct and termination severed wage-loss potential; evidence didn’t show total incapacity from injury. | Yes; substantial evidence supports TTDB from April 28 to August 6, 2008. |
| Whether Narvaiz proven wage-loss disability based on age, education, and work history. | Wage-loss disability proven at 5% given age/education and post-injury history. | Credibility and alternative employment possibilities undermine wage-loss. | Yes; wage-loss disability of 5% affirmed. |
| Whether Narvaiz is entitled to attorney’s fees under §11-9-715. | If entitled to TTDB and wage-loss, attorney’s fees follow. | Fees only if entitlement to TTDB or wage-loss is established. | Yes; fees affirmed because entitlement to TTDB and wage-loss was established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Superior Indus. v. Thomaston, 32 S.W.3d 52 (Ark. App. 2000) (strict construction of §11-9-526; termination for misconduct not a refusal by employee)
- Nelson v. Timberline Int’l, Inc., 964 S.W.2d 357 (Ark. 1998) (strict interpretation of workers’ compensation statutes from legislative declaration)
- Hudak-Lee v. Baxter Cnty. Reg’l Hosp. & Risk Mgmt. Res., 378 S.W.3d 77 (Ark. 2011) (credibility and weight of evidence reviewed on appeal)
- St. Joseph’s Mercy Med. Ctr. v. Redmond, 388 S.W.3d 45 (Ark. App. 2012) (healing period and medical status considerations in TTDB analysis)
- Roark v. Pocahontas Nursing & Rehabilitation, 235 S.W.3d 527 (Ark. App. 2006) (contrast to misconduct-based termination issues; attendance policy distinctions)