Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; November 28, 2001; Arkansas; State Appellate Court
Dayne Bell, employed by Tri-Lakes Services, died in a motor vehicle accident on August 30, 1999. His parents, Bobby Bell and Vanessa Walker, filed a workers' compensation claim for medical and funeral expenses. The Commission ruled that Dayne's death was not compensable, stating that the appellants did not prove he was performing employment services at the time of the accident. This ruling was challenged on appeal, and the court agreed with the appellants, reversing the Commission's decision and remanding for an award of benefits.
The court emphasized that a denial of compensation requires a substantial-evidence standard, meaning the Commission's findings must have a reasonable basis. Bobby Bell testified that Dayne had worked for Tri-Lakes for just over three weeks, primarily in Louisiana, and on the day of the accident, he was en route to retrieve tools for a job in DeQueen, Arkansas. Dayne's supervisor had sent him to the Gillham shop, and the accident occurred while he was driving his personal truck between Valliant and DeQueen.
Tri-Lakes Services' president, John Helms, stated that while employees do not typically travel daily, they may be required to do so occasionally. He noted that Dayne had already worked several hours in Valliant before being sent to Gillham and that completing this task was necessary for the operation. Although Dayne was only paid for four hours that day, Helms indicated that refusing to go to Gillham would have been against company expectations. The appellants contended that the Commission erred in denying compensability based on the finding that Dayne was not performing employment services at the time of his death.
Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-102 (5)(A)(i) defines a compensable injury as an accidental injury resulting in physical harm, requiring medical services, and leading to disability or death, provided it occurs in the course of employment. Injuries occurring outside the performance of employment services are excluded (Ark. Code Ann. 11-9—102(5)(B)(iii)). Determining if an injury occurred within the course of employment involves assessing if it happened within the time and space of employment while serving the employer’s interests.
The appellants argue that Dayne was acting within the course of his employment during his accident. This is supported by precedent in Olsten Kimberly Quality Care v. Pettey, where a nursing assistant's accident while traveling for work was deemed compensable, despite not being compensated for travel time. The court affirmed that the travel was essential to her duties and for her employer’s benefit. Similarly, in Crossett Sch. Dist. v. Fulton, a teacher injured while retrieving glasses after starting her duties was also found to be performing employment services.
In contrast, cases such as Campbell v. Randal Tyler Ford Mercury, Inc. and Coble v. Modern Business Sys. illustrate scenarios where compensability was denied, as the employees were not engaged in required work activities at the time of their accidents. The present case aligns with the favorable precedents where the claimant's travel and timing of the accident indicate he was performing employment duties.
Dayne was required to travel to Gillham to load tools as part of his employment. Unlike the precedent set in Coble v. Modern Business Systems, he was not traveling to begin work; he had already been working for several hours. The appellee contended that the accident was not compensable because Dayne was not being compensated during his travel time, but this factor alone does not determine whether he was performing employment services, as established in Matlock v. Arkansas Blue Cross Blue Shield and Olsten Kimberly Quality Care v. Pettey. Additionally, there is ambiguity in the record regarding whether Dayne was paid for his travel time, with testimony indicating he was paid until 11:00 a.m.
The appellee further argued that Dayne was not performing employment services since his job did not typically require travel. However, previous rulings, including Arkansas Dep’t of Correction v. Glover, clarify that employment can extend beyond normal duties if an employer assigns additional tasks. The requirement for Dayne to travel on the day of the accident was imposed by his employer. The accident occurred within the timeframe and location relevant to his employment and while he was promoting the appellee’s interests. The Commission's denial of relief lacked substantial basis, and it incorrectly concluded that Dayne was not performing employment services at the time of his death. The decision was reversed and remanded for an award of benefits.
