Jackson v. Smiley Sawmill, LLC
| Decision Date | 10 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-20-218,CV-20-218 |
| Citation | 638 S.W.3d 11,2021 Ark. App. 433 |
| Parties | Don Randall JACKSON (Deceased), Appellant v. SMILEY SAWMILL, LLC; and Technology Insurance Co., Appellees |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Strong-Garner-Bauer, P.C., by: Steve Garner, Chandler Gregg, and Nick Smart ; and Spencer Fane, LLP, by: Jason C. Smith, for appellant.
Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C., by: Sherry P. Bartley, Little Rock, and David F. Koehler ; and Matthews, Sanders & Sayes, Little Rock, by: Roy Gene Sanders, for appellee Smiley Sawmill, LLC.
Appellant Don Randall Jackson (deceased) appeals from an opinion by the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that the doctrine of inconsistent positions did not apply to the facts of this case and that Jackson was an employee when he was killed while working for appellee Smiley Sawmill. Jackson argues that the Commission erred in not applying the doctrine and that the Commission's decision was contrary to the law of the case and violated this court's mandate.1 Jackson does not raise an alternative argument challenging the Commission's finding that he was an employee. We affirm the Commission's decision.
In May 2014, "Randy" and Renita Jackson returned to Arkansas after living for nine months in Florida. Jackson contacted his friend Timothy Smiley about working for him as a truck driver because Jackson had a commercial driver's license. Jackson had been working for Timothy for a little over a month when, on July 11, 2014, he was unloading his truck and was struck on the head by a log weighing over 1,000 pounds. There is some indication that the truck had been overloaded.
In August 2016, Jackson's widow brought a negligence action in circuit court against Smiley Sawmill. She alleged that Jackson was an independent contractor, rather than an employee, and therefore not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. Smiley Sawmill had the case transferred to the Commission to determine whether Jackson was an independent contractor or an employee.
An administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that Jackson was an employee, and that opinion was affirmed and adopted by the Commission. On appeal, this court held that a remand was necessary for the Commission to make further findings on whether the doctrine of inconsistent positions applied to prevent Smiley Sawmill from asserting that Jackson was an employee when there was evidence that the employer had treated him as an independent contractor. Jackson v. Smiley Sawmill , 2019 Ark. App. 235, 576 S.W.3d 43 ( Jackson I ). This argument was raised from the outset, but neither the ALJ nor the Commission addressed the matter. We gave the following instructions: "[I]f the doctrine applies and Smiley Sawmill is estopped from taking an inconsistent position, then Jackson was not an employee whose exclusive remedy is recovering damages from the employer through workers’ compensation, and Jackson's widow may proceed with her lawsuit in circuit court." Id. at 6, 576 S.W.3d at 46 (emphasis in original).
On remand, the Commission considered briefs filed by the parties and referred to previous depositions and testimony.2 Deborah LaValle testified that she began working as a secretary at Smiley Sawmill in 2013. She had previously worked at Fred's. At Smiley Sawmill, she was involved with payroll, submitting applications for workers’ compensation insurance, and submitting quarterly wage reports to the Arkansas Department of Workforce Services. LaValle had no experience with payroll or wage reports and was given no job training because her predecessor had no experience either. Because of the lack of training, LaValle looked at two previous wage reports to determine how they were to be completed. She saw that truck drivers were not listed as employees, so she did not include Jackson on the quarterly wage report. LaValle understood that if someone was listed as an employee on the wage report, Smiley Sawmill would have to pay a four-percent tax on that employee. She admitted that it had been a mistake not to list Jackson and other truck drivers as employees on the wage reports. LaValle said that it was a mistake that she made repeatedly but that she had not intended to defraud the state or federal taxing authorities.
Timothy Smiley testified that he dropped out of school and did not receive a high school diploma; instead, he began working in the logging business like his father. Tim said that, when he started Smiley Sawmill in 1997, he did not have employees—it was just him, his wife, and his kids. He said that he had gone "in and out of business" but had begun doing well in 2012, which was when he started hiring employees and doing wage reports. He testified that the job application given to everyone, regardless of position, stated that Smiley Sawmill does not withhold income for taxes, unemployment, or other deductions. He said that everyone at Smiley Sawmill was supposed to receive a 1099. He said that, even though Jackson had not received a 1099, he had been told, like everyone else, that Smiley Sawmill does not withhold from earnings. On workers’ compensation insurance applications that Tim signed, he had indicated that trucking classifications did not apply, but he testified that he did not understand the terms. He said that a lady at the insurance company, who knew that he had a truck and a driver, had filled out the application and sent it to him for his signature. Tim stated that he had other insurance policies with this insurance company, including an umbrella policy. Tim also stated that, even after a workers’ compensation audit, Smiley Sawmill continued to not list truck drivers as employees on quarterly wage reports. He admitted that he had reported to the State of Arkansas that truck drivers at his sawmill had not been correctly identified as employees.
The Commission thus concluded that the doctrine of inconsistent positions did not apply.
The Commission has original exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether a tort action is barred by the exclusive-remedy doctrine. VanWagoner v. Beverly Enters. , 334 Ark. 12, 970 S.W.2d 810 (1998). An employer who has secured for its employees the benefits of workers’ compensation is immune from liability for damages in a tort action brought by an injured employee. Truman Arnold Co. v. Miller Cnty. Cir. Ct. , 2017 Ark. 94, 513 S.W.3d 838. This rule, known as the exclusivity doctrine, arises from Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-105, which provides that "[t]he rights and remedies granted to an employee subject to the provisions of this chapter, on account of injury or death, shall be exclusive of all other rights and remedies of the employee, his legal representative, dependents, [or] next of kin." Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-105(a)(1) (Supp. 2021). Essentially, if an employee is granted a right or remedy under the Workers’ Compensation Act, the employee is limited to the relief provided under the Act. Esterline Techs. Corp. v. Brownlee , 2021 Ark. 33, 617 S.W.3d 256. Because the exclusive-benefits provision of our compensation law favors both the employer and the employee, we take a narrow view of any attempt to seek damages beyond that favored, exclusive remedy. Wilhelm v. Parsons , 2016 Ark. App. 56, 481 S.W.3d 767.
Here, Jackson does not dispute that Smiley Sawmill had a workers’ compensation policy in effect at the time of his death; rather, Jackson contends that he was not covered by it as an employee because his employer had treated him, as well as other truck drivers, as an independent contractor for tax purposes and for obtaining workers’ compensation insurance. The record reflects that, even though Jackson was not listed as an employee, the employer's workers’ compensation carrier offered his widow benefits but that she declined them. Just as in Jackson I , Jackson does not challenge the Commission's factual conclusion, based on the multifactor test, that he was an employee, not an independent contractor. Arguments not made on appeal are abandoned. BHC Pinnacle Pointe Hosp., LLC v. Nelson , 2020 Ark. 70, 594 S.W.3d 62.
On appellate review, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commission's decision and uphold that decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. Honeysuckle v. Curtis H. Stout, Inc. , 2010 Ark. 328, 368 S.W.3d 64. Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. There may be substantial evidence to support the Commission's decision even though we might have reached a different conclusion if we had sat as the trier of fact or heard the case de novo. Id. More significantly, and controlling in this case, it is exclusively within the province of the Commission to determine the credibility and the weight to be accorded to each witness's testimony. Id. We will not reverse the Commission's decision unless we are convinced that fair-minded persons with the same facts before them could not have reached the conclusions arrived at by the Commission. Privett v. Excel Specialty Prods. , 76 Ark. App. 527, 69 S.W.3d 445 (2002).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peco Foods, Inc. v. Johnson
...court and directing the lower court to duly recognize, obey, and execute the appellate court’s judgment. Jackson v. Smiley Sawmill, LLC, 2021 Ark. App. 433, 638 S.W.3d 11. An inferior court must give deference to an appellate court’s mandate, implementing both the letter and spirit of the m......
-
Peco Foods, Inc. v. Johnson
...both the letter and spirit of the mandate, and has no power or authority to deviate from the mandate issued by an appellate court. Id. question of whether the lower court followed the mandate is not simply one of whether the lower court was correct in its construction of the case but also i......