McKeag v. Hunt Transp., Inc., CA

• Decision Date: 06 November 1991
• Docket Number: No. CA,CA
• Citation: 36 Ark.App. 46,818 S.W.2d 581
• Parties: Adrian McKEAG, Appellant, v. HUNT TRANSPORTATION, INC., Appellee. 91-46.
• Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals

Page 581

818 S.W.2d 581

36 Ark.App. 46

Adrian McKEAG, Appellant, v. HUNT TRANSPORTATION, INC., Appellee.

No. CA 91-46.

Court of Appeals of Arkansas Division II.

Nov. 6, 1991.

Jay N. Tolley, Fayetteville, for appellant.

Sidney P. Davis, Jr., Fayetteville, for appellee.

DANIELSON, Judge.

Appellant Adrian McKeag was employed as a truck driver for Hunt Transportation, Inc., a Nebraska based company, when he suffered a heart attack while preparing to load his trailer. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission found that it did not have jurisdiction over McKeag's claim for compensation benefits. We affirm.

McKeag was employed with appellee from October 1985 until January 1987 when he quit his job in order to accept a job with Wal-Mart where he worked for approximately two weeks. In April 1987, McKeag sought to be rehired by appellee and called the Hunt offices in Omaha, Nebraska, from his home in Bentonville, Arkansas.

McKeag traveled to Omaha, filled out employment papers, took his physical and driving exams, and was again employed by appellee. Within a week of reestablishing employment with appellee, he moved his family to Mattawan, Michigan, where he has remained a resident since that time. McKeag continued to drive a truck for appellee until he suffered a heart attack while working in Ohio in August of 1987. McKeag contends his heart attack is causally related to his employment.

The only question before us is whether the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this matter. Relying on Midwest Dredging Company v. Etzberger, 270 Ark. 936, 606 S.W.2d 619 (Ark.App.1980), McKeag contends the commission has jurisdiction over this case because the contract for his employment with appellee was made in Arkansas when he telephoned David White in Omaha, Nebraska, and was told to "come on back." In Etzberger, this court applied Professor Larson's six grounds dealing with the constitutional limits on which the application of a particular compensation act may be asserted, now found in 4 Arthur Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation § 86.10 (1990). This court in Etzberger held that the commission had jurisdiction over the claim on the basis that a contract for hire occurred in Arkansas. In that case the claimant, an Arkansas resident, accepted a job with an Arkansas company over the telephone from his brother, who had called from Louisiana. Claimant then went to Louisiana where he was interviewed and began work. At no time did claimant perform work for Midwest in Arkansas.

In the case at bar, there is nothing in the record to establish who David White is, what exactly was said in the telephone conversation with McKeag, what authority, if any, David White had been given by appellee to hire McKeag, and what was intended by the words "come on back." Thus, there is not enough evidence that a contract for hire was made...