BAKER v. FROZEN FOOD EXPRESS TRANSPORT3/4/1999
Appellant, Maudie Baker, an Alabama resident, challenges the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission's determination that it lacked jurisdiction to hear her claim against the appellee, Frozen Food Express Transport ("FFE"), a Texas Company. Baker filed her claim against FFE seeking benefits as a result of a June 24, 1995, injury that occurred at a truck stop in Earle, Arkansas. Baker also contends that the Commission erred in
finding that FFE rebutted the statutory presumption of jurisdiction. We find no merit in appellant's arguments, and we affirm.
FFE hired Baker in Atlanta, Georgia, in March of 1995, to work as an over-the-road truck driver throughout the forty-eight contiguous states and Canada. According to Baker, FFE had approximately five hundred drivers traveling across the United States and Canada.
During her employment with FFE, Baker drove through Arkansas approximately twice a week from March until June. Baker testified that FFE had other trucks on the road in Arkansas and that FFE designated a specific fuel stop, not owned by FFE, in West Memphis, Arkansas. Baker estimated that four FFE drivers were stopped at the West Memphis fuel stop at one time. Pay stubs, offered into evidence, indicated that FFE paid Baker's salary through its payroll account in Dallas, Texas, the location of the company's headquarters.
At the time of the accident, Baker was taking a DOT mandated eight-hour break when another truck, attempting to park, hit her truck. Baker recalled that she was in Arkansas making a delivery, but could not remember where, and that FFE had a drop yard, full of empty and loaded trailers, somewhere in Arkansas. However, she acknowledged that FFE maintained no supervisory personnel at the drop yard. Following the accident, Baker notified FFE, and a wrecker took her and her truck back to Texas, where she received medical care, indemnity, and medical benefits through August 23, 1996.
Texas provides employers an alternative to workers' compensation payments, and FFE provided Baker's benefits through such a plan, the Conwell Voluntary Employee Benefit Plan. FFE, via Conwell, paid Baker $6,636.57 in indemnity benefits and $20,145.32 in medical benefits. However, on August 26, 1996, Conwell denied Baker's request for extended benefits and informed her that further medical treatment would require her health-insurance carrier's approval. Following the denial of additional benefits, Baker sought workers' compensation benefits in Arkansas.
On June 30, 1997, an administrative law judge determined that the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission lacked jurisdiction over Baker's claim and denied and dismissed the action. The full Commission affirmed and adopted the administrative law judge's opinion. Subsequently, Baker appealed to the Arkansas Court of Appeals. In a substituted opinion upon denial of rehearing, the appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision and held that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain Baker's claim. Baker v. Frozen Food Express Transport, 63 Ark. App. 100, 981 S.W.2d 101 (1998). Pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. Rule 2-4 (1998), we granted review of the Court of Appeals' decision. Notably, when we grant a petition to review a case decided by the Court of Appeals, we review it as if it was filed originally in this court. See Williams v. State, 328 Ark. 487, 944 S.W.2d 822 (1997) (citing Allen v. State, 326 Ark. 541, 932 S.W.2d 764 (1996)).
Jurisdiction
The appellant contends that the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission erred in finding that it lacked jurisdiction over her claim. Baker also argues that the Commission erred in finding that FFE rebutted the statutory presump
Page 1 2 Arkansas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|