481 S.W.3d 767
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- Wilhelm appeals AWCC finding that he was CMB’s employee and that CMB had workers’ compensation insurance, so exclusive-remedy applies; Wilhelm injured July 16, 2009 on a CMB construction site; he worked for CMB since 1999, paid hourly, supervised by Chuck Parsons and Ray Parsons; he reported to the shop daily, used CMB tools, and did general labor; CMB supplied a 1099 tax form rather than a W-2 and claimed to have procured workers’ compensation insurance; Linda Parsons testified to insurance procurement and policy details; Rankin v. Farmers Tractor & Equipment Co. was used to interpret “secured the payment of compensation”; the Commission affirmed the ALJ’s employee finding and the insurance-coverage finding, and Wilhelm challenged both and the hearing fairness
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wilhelm was an employee or independent contractor for workers’ comp | Wilhelm—employee status contested by CMB | CMB—employee status supported by factors | Employee status affirmed |
| Whether CMB properly “secured the payment of compensation” under the statute | Insurance coverage not adequately shown to cover Wilhelm | Existence of a workers’ comp policy suffices to secure payment | CMB’s policy in effect; exception to exclusivity does not apply |
| Whether the hearing was conducted fairly | ALJ allegedly curtailed evidence and limited cross-examination | Carrier participation allowed; fair opportunity to present evidence | Fair opportunity to present evidence; no reversible error |
| Whether the 1099 form and tax treatment affect workers’ comp status | 1099 suggests independent contractor status | Tax treatment not determinative for workers’ comp status | Tax treatment not dispositive; status based on Franklin v. Arkansas Kraft factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Honeysuckle v. Curtis H. Stout, Inc., 2010 Ark. 328 (Ark. Sup. Ct. 2010) (standard of review for substantial evidence in workers’ comp)
- Rankin v. Farmers Tractor & Equipment Co., 319 Ark. 26, 888 S.W.2d 657 (Ark. Sup. Ct. 1994) ( ‘secure payment’ interpretation under 11-9-105(b)(1))
- Seawright v. U.S.F.&G. Co., 275 Ark. 96, 627 S.W.2d 557 (Ark. 1982) (unity between employer and insurer for policy coverage considerations)
- Franklin v. Arkansas Kraft, Inc., 5 Ark. App. 264, 635 S.W.2d 286 (Ark. App. 1982) (factors for determining employee vs independent contractor)
- Sykes v. Williams, 373 Ark. 236, 283 S.W.3d 209 (Ark. 2008) (strict construction of workers’ compensation statutes)
- Brown v. Finney, 326 Ark. 691, 932 S.W.2d 769 (Ark. 1996) (exclusive-remedy perspective in workers’ comp)
- Cloverleaf Express v. Fouts, 91 Ark. App. 4, 207 S.W.3d 576 (Ark. App. 2005) (employee status factors in Arkansas)
- Webb v. Hot Springs Packing Co., 2013 Ark. App. 526 (Ark. App. 2013) (application of employee/independent contractor factors)
- Irvan v. Bounds, 205 Ark. 752, 170 S.W.2d 674 (Ark. 1943) (control vs right to control in employment relationships)