Snow v. Alcoa
| Decision Date | 19 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. CA,CA |
| Parties | Felton SNOW, Appellant, v. ALCOA, Appellee. 85-46. |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Youngdahl & Larrison by Diane A. Larrison, Little Rock, for appellant.
Rose Law Firm, Little Rock, for appellee.
In this workers' compensation case, the issue on appeal concerns the doctrine of estoppel as a bar to the appellee's defense of the statute of limitations.
The appellant was injured on the job in 1975 and he was paid the appropriate temporary total disability benefits. He was rated as having a 20% permanent partial disability and he accepted a lump sum payment in October, 1979 as full settlement on that claim. Had he not accepted the lump sum payment, his last payment would have been in December, 1981. The appellant received additional temporary total disability benefits in 1980. In January, 1981, the appellant retired, having reached the age of 62 after 27 years of employment with the appellee.
The uncontradicted testimony indicates that a few days before he retired the appellant had a conversation with a Mr. Holland, the individual in charge of administering the appellee's retirement and workers' compensation plans. Mr. Holland did not testify, apparently because he informed the appellee's attorney that he did not remember anything about Mr. Snow's retirement or any conversation he had with him. The appellant testified that Mr. Holland informed him that after his retirement he could not draw any further workers' compensation benefits. The appellant testified that, but for Mr. Holland's representation to him that he would become ineligible for workers' compensation benefits upon his retirement, he would have filed for benefits for his loss of wage earning capacity. Shortly after the statute of limitations had expired, the appellant discovered that other similarly situated retired workers were drawing post-retirement workers' compensation benefits. He then contacted an attorney and shortly thereafter a claim for additional benefits was filed.
At the hearing before the administrative law judge, the appellant contended that the appellee should be estopped from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense. The appellant also contended that he was entitled to additional benefits for lost wage earning capacity because his 20% permanent partial disability rating was only an anatomical rating. The appellee argued that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations, and that the appellant's uncorroborated testimony did not establish facts upon which a finding of estoppel could be made.
The administrative law judge concluded that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. He found that under Arkansas law estoppel may be based on an employer's conduct which lulls the employee into believing that he or she will receive benefits without filing a claim, but that no estoppel arises when the employer denies the worker's entitlement to benefits. The full Commission reviewed the record de novo and affirmed the ruling of the administrative law judge. From that decision, comes this appeal.
On appeal, this Court is required to review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commission's decision and to uphold that decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. Ark.Stat.Ann., Section 81-1325 (Supp.1983). In order to reverse a decision of the Commission, we must be convinced that fair-minded persons, with the same facts before them, could not have reached the conclusion arrived at by the Commission. Office of Emergency Services v. Home Ins. Co., 2 Ark.App. 185, 618 S.W.2d 573 (1981); Bunny Bread v. Shipman, 267 Ark. 926, 591 S.W.2d 692 (App.1980). Further, the question presented to this Court is not whether the evidence would support findings contrary to those made by the Commission, but whether the evidence supports the findings made by the Commission. Reynolds Mining Co. v. Raper, 245 Ark. 749, 434 S.W.2d 304 (1968). Even if the decision of the Commission is against the preponderance of the evidence, we will not reverse where its decision is supported by substantial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burdine v. Dow Chemical Co.
...S.W.2d 152, 153-54 n. 2 (1990); Linda Elenia Askew Trust v. Hopkins, 15 Ark.App. 19, 688 S.W.2d 316, 319 (1985); Snow v. ALCOA, 15 Ark.App. 205, 691 S.W.2d 194, 196 (1985). We agree with the district court that equitable estoppel is not applicable to this case because the third element is n......
-
Chism v. Aluminum Co of America
...(3) the latter must be ignorant of the true facts; and (4) he must rely on the former's conduct to his injury. Snow v. ALCOA, 15 Ark. App. 205, 691 S.W.2d 194 (1985). We hold that the Commission did not err in finding the doctrine of estoppel to be inapplicable to this case. Chism failed to......
-
Gencorp Polymer Products v. Landers
...persons, with the same facts before them, could not have reached the conclusion arrived at by the Commission. Snow v. Alcoa, 15 Ark.App. 205, 691 S.W.2d 194 (1985). The question is whether the evidence supports the findings made by the Commission and even if the decision is against the prep......
-
Elk Roofing Co. v. Pinson, CA
...that determination on appeal we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the findings of the Commission. Snow v. Alcoa, 15 Ark.App. 205, 691 S.W.2d 194 (1985). On this issue Elk Roofing points to medical testimony indicating that Pinson had "fully recovered from illnesses arisi......