Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner filed this action against Respondents, her former employer and former supervisor, asserting retaliation claims pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-123-108. After the case was removed to federal court, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the claims as time-barred, arguing that the one-year statute of limitations period pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-123-107(c)(3) of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act should apply. The federal district court asked the Arkansas Supreme Court to accept a certified question to decide the appropriate statute-of-limitations period applicable to section 16-123-108 claims. The Supreme Court answered by holding that the three-year statute-of limitations period provided in Ark. Code Ann. 16-56-105 applies to retaliation claims filed pursuant to section 16-123-108. View "Smith v. ConAgra Foods, Inc." on Justia Law

Employee was employer at Employer's aluminum-processing plant from 1957 to 1989. In 2009, Employee filed an occupational-disease claim for benefits with the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission, alleging that he suffered from cancer caused by his exposure to asbestos while working for Employer. A law judge found Employee's complaint was time barred. Rather than appeal the decision to the full Commission, Employee filed suit against Employer in circuit court. Employer filed a motion to dismiss based on the exclusive remedy afforded by the Workers' Compensation Act. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that, where a plaintiff's disease manifests after the statute of limitations has expired, a circuit court has authority to exercise jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims. The Supreme Court granted Employer's requested writ of prohibition, holding that the Commission had exclusive jurisdiction to decide the issue in the first instance, and because Employee's claim was not submitted to the Commission, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to decide the case. View "Reynolds Metal Co. v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

Appellant filed a claim for benefits associated with an injury he received during his employment. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commissioned denied the claim based on a finding that Appellant tested positive for controlled substances after the injury and that he failed to rebut the statutory presumption that his injury was substantially occasioned by his drug use. Appellant appealed, arguing that the Commission's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and that the Commission lacked the authority to make credibility determinations contrary to those made by an ALJ. Currently before the Supreme Court was Defendant's motion to supplement the record with affidavits and depositions that Appellant attached to a brief he previously filed. The Supreme Court remanded to the Commission to settle the record to determine whether the documents were actually placed in the record. View "Prock v. Bull Shoals Boat Landing" on Justia Law

Appellant received an injury during his employment with Appellee. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission denied Appellant's claim for benefits based on a finding that Appellant tested positive for illegal drugs after the injury and that he failed to rebut the statutory presumption that his injury was substantially occasioned by his drug use. Appellant appealed, contending (1) the Commission's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, and (2) the structure of the Commission was unconstitutional. Currently before the Supreme Court was Appellant's motion to supplement the record. The Court remanded to the Commission to settle the record with regard to certain affidavits and depositions. View "Edmisten v. Bull Shoals Landing" on Justia Law

In 2008, Plaintiff was hired as the chief of police for the City of McRae. The Mayor terminated Plaintiff's employment in 2009 for allegedly falsifying fire-department records and for insubordination. The city council voted not to overturn the Mayor's decision to terminate Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a complaint in 2009 against the City, the Mayor, and City alderman, asserting (1) Defendants failed to comply with the provisions of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act because they did not give sufficient notice of the city council meeting; (2) Plaintiff's due process rights were violated; (3) the Mayor's termination of Plaintiff's employment violated her rights under the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act; and (4) Plaintiff's termination without just cause violated her rights under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on each of Plaintiff's claims, asserting that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The circuit court denied the summary judgment motion. The Mayor appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in not granting the Mayor qualified immunity on the claims brought by Plaintiff. Remanded. View "Sullivan v. Coney" on Justia Law

Appellant was employed by Employer when he suffered a compensable work-related brain injury. Appellant, who was permanently and totally disabled, filed a workers' compensation claim seeking benefits and also requested benefits for the nursing care services his mother was providing. The workers' compensation commission (Commission) found Appellant's injury was compensable but denied the requested nursing service benefits. Appellant subsequently made a second request for additional benefits in the form of nursing services at Timber Ridge Ranch, an assisted living facility. The Commission denied Appellant benefits, finding that the services at Timber Ridge were not nursing services as defined by the law. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Commission's findings and conclusions were not supported by substantial evidence and that the services provided at Timber Ridge qualified as nursing services under the applicable statutes. Remanded. View "Pack v. Little Rock Convention Ctr. & Visitors Bureau" on Justia Law

Appellee contracted with the Arkansas Department of Career Education, Division of Rehabilitation Services (ARS) to provide psychological and other services. Appellee contacted the United States Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to report his belief that federal funds were being illegally used. A few days later, ARS terminated Appellee's services. Thereafter, Appellee filed the instant action pursuant to the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act, alleging that he was terminated as a result of his report to the OIG. After a jury trial, the circuit court entered judgment in favor of Appellee, awarding damages of $110,452. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err (1) in ruling Appellee was a "public employee" as a matter of law; (2) in denying ARS's motion for a directed verdict on the ground that Appellee failed to report his allegations to an "appropriate authority"; (3) in instructing the jury on mitigation of damages; and (4) in denying ARS's motion for new trial or, alternatively, remittitur. View "State Dep't of Career Educ. v. Means" on Justia Law

Booker T. Washington, Jr. filed a claim against Porocel Corporation with the Workers' Compensation Commission, alleging exposure to asbestos and silica dust resulting in lung disease and silicosis. An ALJ found Washington's claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Washington subsequently filed suit against Porocel, alleging, inter alia, negligence and breach of implied warranty. Porocel moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that the Commission had exclusive jurisdiction of the claims alleged and that the Arkansas Workers Compensation Act (Act) was Washington's exclusive remedy. The circuit court denied Porocel's motion to dismiss, concluding that Washington's occupational disease was not one for which the Act provided coverage. Porocel then filed a petition for a writ of prohibition to prevent the circuit court from exercising jurisdiction over Washington's complaint. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that Washington's claim was covered by the Act. View "Porocel Corp. v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

Appellants, state police officers, brought this suit individually and on behalf of a class consisting of members of the Arkansas State Police Retirement System (ASPRS), contending that various state defendants had violated the law by failing to properly fund the ASPRS between 1992 and 2003 and that the improper funding violated the Arkansas Constitution. The circuit court dismissed some of Appellants' claims and remanded. On remand, the circuit court granted summary judgment for Defendants. On appeal, Appellants asserted that the circuit court erred in finding that a uniform and travel-expense allowance provided for in Ark. Code Ann. 12-8-209 was not reportable to the ASPRS as a portion of payroll pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 24-6-209(a). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 24-6-209(a) does not include a uniform and travel-expense allowance such that it is reportable to ASPRS for purposes of calculating retirement benefits. View "McLemore v. Weiss" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a complaint against his employer (Employer), alleging that he was terminated in retaliation for asserting his rights under the Arkansas workers' compensation statutes. After the case was removed to federal court, Employer filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the claim for retaliation had been abolished under Ark. Code Ann. 11-9-107, and therefore, Petitioner failed to state a claim. Petitioner argued that he was seeking relief allowed under Ark. Code Ann. 16-118-107, the crime victims' civil-liability statute for felonious conduct. The Supreme Court accepted certification to answer a question of law and held that, by enacting section 16-118-107 under the Workers' Compensation Act, the Arkansas General Assembly did not intend to revive the individual cause of action for common-law remedies for retaliation under Arkansas' workers' compensation law that it expressly annulled at section 11-9-107, and therefore, the exclusive remedy provision of the Act precluded recovery under section 16-118-107. View "Lambert v. LQ Mgmt. LLC" on Justia Law