 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
P.A.M. TRANSP. v. MILLER6/1/1988
BR>
1A A. Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation, 25.00 (1985). This traveling employee exception was adopted in Arkansas over thirty years ago in Frank Lyon Company v. Oates, 225 Ark. 682, 284 S.W.2d 637 (1955).
In Arkansas Department of Health v. Huntley, 12 Ark. App. 287, 675 S.W.2d 845 (1984), this court affirmed the Commission's determination that a woman on an overnight
business trip who had been assaulted while en route from a hotel bar to her room was injured in the course of her employment. We relied on the reasoning in J & G Cabinets v. Hennington, 269 Ark. 789, 600 S.W.2d 916 (Ark. App. 1980): "Activities of a personal nature, not forbidden but reasonably to be expected, may be a material incident of the employment and injuries suffered in the course of such activities are compensable. . . . The controlling issue is whether the activity is reasonably expectable so as to be an incident of the employment, and thus in essence a part of it." Regarding the status of the claimant in Huntley, supra, we observed that her use of the bar was a natural and probable consequence or incident of her stay in the hotel, and we concluded that at the time she was attacked in a passageway as she returned to her room "she had clearly regained her traveling employee status at this point."
The record in the present case reveals that at the time of his injury appellee had not completed his assigned duties for that day's long-distance haul. He was required to return the truck to the terminal. The uncontradicted testimony indicates that he made several efforts, both at his motel and later at the tavern, to contact a friend to provide transportation for him once he had delivered the vehicle. He was, therefore, still on duty when he was injured.
[3, 4] Questions of credibility and the weight and sufficiency to be given evidence are matters for the Commission to determine. Administrative agencies such as the Workers' Compensation Commission are better equipped by specialization, insight, and experience to analyze and determine issues and to translate evidence into findings of fact. Central Maloney, Inc. v. York, 10 Ark. App. 254, 663 S.W.2d 196 (1984). Under our standard of limited review, decisions of the Commission must stand if supported by substantial evidence, and, in determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the Commission's findings, the testimony must be weighed in the light most favorable to those findings. Owens v. National Health Laboratories, Inc., 8 Ark. App. 92, 648 S.W.2d 829 (1983). Substantial evidence has been defined as more than a mere scintilla and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is evidence of such force and character that it would, with reasonable and material
certainty and precision, compel a conclusion one way or the other. DeFrancisco v. Arkansas Kraft Corp., 5 Ark. App. 195, 636 S.W.2d 291 (1982).
Appellee's pause for refreshment, although perhaps reasonably expectable, was found by the Commission to have been a deviation from employment duties. As the Commission noted, citing Huntley, when the employee abandons the deviation and returns to the performance of his duties, he regains his status as a traveling employee. Appellee, at the time of his injury, was returning to his rig with the intention of driving it to appellant P.A.M. headquarters in Tontitown. Clearly there is substantial evidence that appellee, whatever his earlier deviation might have been, was at that moment acting within the course and scope of his employment.
Affirmed.
CORBIN, C.J., dissents.
DONALD L. CORBIN, Chief Judge, dissen
Page 1 2 3 4 Arkansas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|