 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ellenbecker v. Security Alert11/16/2005
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission (Commission), affirming the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), found that appellants Sarah and Alysa Ellenbecker failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that John Ellenbecker (deceased employee of appellee Security Alert, Inc.) sustained a compensable injury in that there was insufficient evidence to show that he was performing employment services at the time of his fatal automobile accident. We affirm.
On August 8, 2001, Mr. Ellenbecker was installing home alarm systems for his employer, appellee Security Alert, Inc. He had completed two installations that morning, one in the Jacksonville, Arkansas, area and one in the Cabot, Arkansas, area and, according to the computer system that manages the installation job schedules, had no other jobs scheduled for the day. Upon leaving his last job site, Mr. Ellenbecker traveled north on Highway 5 and approached the intersection with West Lewisburg Road, at which time he was involved in an automobile collision that resulted in his death. The accident occurred at 12:08 p.m. at a location that was described by several individuals, including his widow, appellant Sarah Ellenbecker, as "in front of their home."
The ALJ determined that Mr. Ellenbecker received injuries from which he subsequently died in an automobile accident that occurred in front of his residence during the noon hour with no correlating work order. She found that he was not performing employment services at the time of the accident and that, accordingly, there was no compensable injury as defined by Ark. Code Ann. ยง 11-9-102. Appellants appealed to the Commission, and the Commission affirmed and adopted the ALJ's opinion without further findings. From the Commission's decision comes this appeal.
Typically, on appeal to this court, we review only the decision of the Commission, not that of the ALJ. Daniels v. Affiliated Foods S. W., 70 Ark. App. 319, 17 S.W.3d 817 (2000). In this case, the Commission affirmed and adopted the ALJ's opinion as its own, which it is permitted to do under Arkansas law. See Death & Permanent Total Disability Trust Fund v. Branum, 82 Ark. App. 338, 107 S.W.3d 876 (2003). Moreover, in so doing, the Commission makes the ALJ's findings and conclusions the findings and conclusions of the Commission. See Branum, supra. Therefore, for purposes of our review, we consider both the ALJ's order and the Commission's majority order.
In reviewing decisions from the Workers' Compensation Commission, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commission's findings, and we affirm if the decision is supported by substantial evidence. Smith v. City of Fort Smith, 84 Ark. App. 430, 143 S.W.3d 593 (2004). If reasonable minds could reach the conclusion of the Commission, its decision must be affirmed. K II Constr. Co. v. Crabtree, 78 Ark. App. 222, 79 S.W.3d 414 (2002). We cannot undertake a de novo review of the evidence and are limited by the standard of review in these cases. Id. It is the responsibility of the Commission to draw inferences when the testimony is open to more than a single interpretation, whether controverted or not; and when it does so, its findings have the force and effect of a jury verdict. Oak Grove Lumber Co. v. Highfill, 62 Ark. App. 42, 968 S.W.2d 637 (1998). The Commission is not required to believe the testimony of any witness, but may accept and translate into findings of fact only those portions of the testimony it deems worthy of belief; once the Commission has made its decision on issues of credibility, the appellate court is bound by that decision
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Arkansas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|