Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Judge, Court of Appeals of Arkansas
Ark. State Univ. v. Gatlin-Tennant
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-11-29
In Ark. State Univ. v. Gatlin-Tennant, the Arkansas Court of Appeals reviewed a workers’ compensation dispute in which Jeanette Gatlin-Tennant sought reimbursement for installing a walk-in shower with handrails after a compensable left-knee injury sustained while working at Arkansas State University. The appellants contended that the expense was unauthorized because the claimant had not given prior notice of the installation and relied on the change-of-physician statute, Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-514(c)(3). The court affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Commission’s award of reimbursement. It held that the statute did not apply because the shower was prescribed by the employer’s accepted physician, Dr. Byrd, as medically necessary, and the claimant had contacted the claims specialist and sent the lowest bid before installation; her unrebutted testimony established sufficient notice.
labor & employment
Walker v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-11-15 · cited 5×
In Walker v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, Nashira Walker appealed a Washington County Circuit Court order adjudicating her two minor children dependent-neglected and placing them in DHS custody, following a long history of protective-services involvement, multiple abuse allegations, the mother’s admitted drug use, and her failure to complete offered parenting classes. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the adjudication, holding that the evidence—including scarring on one child, the child’s disclosures of abuse, the mother’s positive drug screen, and her minimal participation in prior services—supported the finding of dependency-neglect and that DHS had made reasonable efforts to prevent removal through earlier referrals and a bus pass. The court declined to review the disposition findings on whether continued DHS custody was in the children’s best interests, because the order lacked the required Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) certification and was therefore not appealable on that issue.
family lawprocedure
Wall Farms, LLC v. Hulsey
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-11-15 · cited 8×
This case involves a workers’ compensation claim by Jeff Hulsey, an employee of Wall Farms, LLC, who alleged compensable lower-back injuries from two separate on-the-job accidents: one on April 23, 2014, while Liberty Mutual provided coverage, and another on August 14, 2014, while Riverport Insurance provided coverage. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission found that Hulsey failed to prove a compensable injury from the first accident but succeeded with the second, awarding him medical benefits and temporary total disability from October 6 through November 6, 2014, making Riverport responsible. Wall Farms and Riverport appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and application of law regarding the August injury and award, while Hulsey cross-appealed the denial of additional disability benefits. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed on both appeals, holding that the Commission’s decision was supported by substantial evidence viewed in the light most favorable to its findings, including medical records and testimony establishing the second accident’s compensability and the lack of evidence for incapacity beyond November 6, 2014.
labor & employment
Brinkley v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-11-15 · cited 1×
The case involved the Arkansas Department of Human Services petitioning to terminate the parental rights of Dorletha Brinkley Lambert and Timothy Brinkley to their three young children after the children were adjudicated dependent-neglected in 2015 due to inadequate supervision and related issues. The trial court terminated both parents’ rights, finding statutory grounds including failure to comply with the case plan and, for Timothy, abandonment. On appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of Dorletha’s rights, holding that clear and convincing evidence supported the grounds and that termination was in the children’s best interest. It reversed the termination of Timothy’s rights, concluding that the evidence of abandonment was insufficient under the clear-and-convincing standard because his incarceration and the lack of provided services did not establish the required level of proof that he had abandoned the children. The matter was remanded in part for further proceedings regarding Timothy.
family law
Box v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-11-08 · cited 5×
The case involved former J.B. Hunt employee David Box's appeal of a trial court order that granted his former employer a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. The order barred Box from disclosing confidential information or trade secrets to competitor Hub Group and from working there for one year, based on confidentiality, noncompete, and stock agreements signed during his employment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that J.B. Hunt failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits because there was no evidence Box had disclosed or possessed protected information, and the trial court made insufficient findings to support the injunction. The court also rejected arguments that the appeal was moot due to dismissal of the underlying complaint or expiration of the temporary order, noting the fees award and security bond created ongoing effects.
labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure
McCuller-Silverman v. Director, Department of Workforce Services
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-11-08
The case involved Sharon McCuller-Silverman’s appeal of the Arkansas Board of Review’s denial of unemployment benefits after her termination as an administrator at Trinity Village, Inc. The employer alleged she was fired for insubordination, citing her refusal to prepare a required plan of correction, disclosure of confidential information, and other unprofessional conduct that violated the employee handbook. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the Board’s decision. It held that the employer met its burden to show misconduct through credible testimony that the claimant willfully disregarded job responsibilities and company rules, and that substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings on credibility and facts. The court declined to address any repayment issue, as it was not part of the decisions under review.
labor & employment