No Ruling by Arkansas Supreme Court on Fairness of Workers’ Comp System

But Justices Don’t Exclude Possibility of Revisiting the Issue

The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission to deny an injured worker’s claim but declined to rule on the injured man’s argument that the Commission operates unfairly in violation of the state’s constitution. However, according to the opinion written by Associate Justice Donald L. Corbin in Edward Williams v. Johnson Custom Homes, Virginia Surety Company, and Paysource, Inc., the Court did not exclude the possibility that it would consider the question in the future.

“Full adversarial development is lacking in this case, and we therefore express no position on the constitutional questions,” wrote Corbin on behalf of the Court. “The lack of adversarial development in the present case does not, however, foreclose the possibility of our addressing the constitutional challenge in the future when the issue is properly presented to us.”

A Fall From Scaffolding

Edward Williams of Mountain Home, Ark., was injured in a fall from scaffolding while working for Johnson Custom Homes in April 2004 in Baxter County. Williams had originally initiated a workers’ comp claim in Ohio because at the time of his fall his paychecks were coming from Paysource Inc., an Ohio company. In July 2004 Williams initiated a claim for benefits in Arkansas. The workers’ comp commission denied Williams’ claim for compensation on jurisdictional reasons and he appealed.

Finding fault with the decision of the Arkansas Court of Appeals in the case, which affirmed the AWCC’s decision, the high court “reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion” the opinion of the AWCC and reversed the decision of the Arkansas Court of Appeals.

The Court explained that the AWCC, in denying Williams’ claim for compensation “erroneously relied” on a previous legal decision in Biddle v. Smith & Campbell, Inc., 28 Ark. App. 46, 773 S.W.2d 840 (1989)

“The Commission based its finding on a misconception of the applicable law,” wrote Corbin.

“The Commission erroneously relied on Biddle and the misconceptions announced therein to determine that the proceedings Williams tried to initiate in Arkansas and his claim for benefits in Ohio were mutually exclusive,” Corbin explained. “Such is not the law. The law is in fact to the contrary. For decades, the law has been well settled that all states having a legitimate interest in the injury have the right to apply their own diverse workers’ compensation rules and standards, either separately, simultaneously, or successively.”

The Court also noted that “at all times relevant to this case, Williams was an Arkansas resident. He was working in Arkansas when he was injured in Arkansas. Johnson Custom Homes was an Arkansas company in the business of building residential homes in Arkansas. The only connection to Ohio was Johnson Custom Homes’ relationship with Paysource, an Ohio company.”

The Constitutional Question

Williams had filed a motion alleging that the entire Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Law is in violation of the “Separation of Powers Clauses and the Due Process Clauses of the United States and Arkansas Constitutions,” according to the court document.

“Essentially, Appellant alleges that the executive branch and private interests have exerted pressure on the Commission and the [administrative law judges] ALJs thereby infringing on the independence of the Commission and ALJs and resulting in biased decisions,” Corbin wrote.

The Associated Press reported that Williams’ attorney, Rick Spencer, had argued that the panel can be overly influenced by the governor, who appoints all three commission members. The system is unfair, Spencer said, because the votes of two of the commissioners “almost invariably” support the interests of the person who appointed them.

However, as Associate Justice Corbin wrote, none of “the Appellants in this case responded to the constitutional arguments, except to refer to them as ‘nonsensical ramblings’ or moot.”

Stating that the Court had been “presented with only one side of the argument,” Corbin noted that it “does not strike down a legislative act on constitutional grounds without first having the benefit of a fully developed adversarial case.”

Topics Claims Workers' Compensation Ohio Arkansas