 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson v. Pike County Association of Arkansas Counties11/16/2005
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appellant Peggy Jackson appeals from the Workers' Compensation Commission's (Commission) decision that affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) finding that she failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury she sustained on July 8, 2003, occurred during a time when she was performing employment services. On appeal, Jackson asserts that (1) Act 796 and the decisions rendered thereafter have not abrogated the traveling salesman exception to the going and coming rule and (2) she was performing employment services which were inherently necessary for her job at the time she was injured. We affirm.
Appellant worked for the Pike County Sheriff's Office as a dispatcher. On July 8, 2003, she was in Little Rock attending a three- day training session sponsored by the Arkansas Crime Information Center (ACIC). Her attendance at this training was required and paid for by appellee. Appellant traveled to Little Rock in a police unit, and hotel accommodations were provided by appellee. Following her first day of training, appellant returned to the hotel to study and do homework. She thereafter went to bed, but she was awakened at two or three in the morning by the smoke alarm in her room. She testified that she called the front desk but was told that she would have to deal with it herself. After pulling a chair over underneath the alarm, appellee climbed onto a dresser and removed the battery from the alarm. As she attempted to descend, she lost her footing and fell. She immediately began to experience pain in her hip and lower back.
When reviewing a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the findings of the Commission. Linton v. Arkansas Dep't of Corr., ___ Ark. App. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Sept. 1, 2004). This court must affirm the decision of the Commission if it is supported by substantial evidence. Id. Substantial evidence is that evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion of the Commission. Id. The issue on appeal is not whether the appellate court might have reached a different result or whether the evidence would have supported a contrary finding; if reasonable minds could reach the Commission's conclusion, the appellate court must affirm its decision. Kinnebrew v. Little John's Trucks, Inc., 66 Ark. App. 90, 989 S.W.2d 541 (1999). Where a claim is denied because the claimant has failed to show an entitlement to compensation by a preponderance of the evidence, the substantial-evidence standard of review requires us to affirm if the Commission's opinion displays a substantial basis for the denial of relief. Clardy v. Medi-Homes LTC Serv. LLC, 75 Ark. App. 156, 55 S.W.3d 791 (2001).
Act 796 of 1993 defines a compensable injury as " n accidental injury . . . arising out of and in the course of employment. . . ." Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i) (Repl. 2002). A compensable injury does not include an " njury which was inflicted upon the employee at a time when employment services were not being performed. . . ." Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(B)(iii) (Repl. 2002). Act 796 does not define the phrase "in the course of employment" or the term "employment services." Pifer v. Single Source Transp., 347 Ark. 851, 856, 69 S.W.3d 1, 3 (2002) (citing Olsten Kimberly Quality Care v. Pettey, 328 Ark. 381, 944 S.W.2d 524 (1997)). Therefore, our supreme court has interpreted the term "employment services" as performance of something that is generally required by an employer. Pifer, supra. Our courts use the same test to determine whether an employee is performing "employment services" as the
Page 1 2 3 Arkansas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|