Kenneth Hixson

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lorenzo Harrison was convicted by a St. Francis County jury of first-degree murder and possession of a firearm by certain persons after he shot and killed Joe Evans at a block party in Hughes, Arkansas, on July 4, 2009, following an argument involving Harrison’s wife. He received concurrent sentences of 300 months and 60 months in prison. On appeal, Harrison challenged the denial of his motion to sever the charges, the denial of his directed-verdict motions on the murder count, and the trial court’s refusal to give his requested “choice of evils” jury instruction. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict and that Harrison failed to obtain a ruling on his proposed jury instruction, thereby waiving that issue for appellate review.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

The case involved Davis Floor Covering, Inc. appealing a June 2017 decision by the Arkansas Board of Review that granted unemployment benefits to former employee Robert Hoyl, finding he had been discharged for reasons other than misconduct connected with his work. The Arkansas Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court explained that the company's owner, who was not a licensed attorney, had signed and filed the petition on the corporation's behalf. Under established precedent, corporations must be represented by licensed counsel in court proceedings, and filings by non-attorneys are treated as nullities that do not confer jurisdiction.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves appeals by Jonathan Harris and Kelvin Rasheed Willis from an Arkansas circuit court order terminating their parental rights to their respective children, M.H. and K.W., following petitions filed by the Arkansas Department of Human Services due to the mother's drug issues, criminal history, and inability to care for the children, as well as the fathers' circumstances including incarceration and unknown whereabouts. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the terminations of both fathers' parental rights. The court reviewed the record de novo and held that clear and convincing evidence supported at least one statutory ground for termination plus a finding that termination was in each child's best interest; it further rejected Rasheed's claims regarding delayed appointment of counsel and due process, finding counsel was appointed at the earliest opportunity and any prior issues were harmless since he was represented at the termination hearing.

family lawprocedure

Lisa Webster, a correctional officer at the Arkansas Department of Correction’s Varner unit, sought workers’ compensation benefits after slipping on ice and injuring her knee in the employee parking lot while arriving for work on February 23, 2015. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission denied her claim, finding she was not performing employment services at the time of the injury, and Webster appealed. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s decision. Under Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-102(4), an injury is compensable only if it arises out of and in the course of employment, which requires the employee to be doing something generally required by the employer; here, Webster had not yet passed any security checkpoint, clocked in, or begun any job duties when she fell. The court distinguished her situation from cases where claimants had already entered the facility or were traveling between work sites at the employer’s direction.

labor & employment

The case involved James Krecker’s appeal of a Crawford County Circuit Court order terminating his parental rights to his three children after the Arkansas Department of Human Services removed them from his home due to physical abuse by their stepmother and his failure to protect them. The trial court had found the children dependent-neglected, noted the father’s partial compliance with the case plan but ongoing issues with home stability and safety, and determined that termination served the children’s best interests, including for the oldest child, S.K. On appeal, Krecker challenged only the termination as to S.K., arguing it was not in her best interest because her therapists favored continued reunification efforts and she would be difficult to adopt. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, holding that the evidence supported the best-interest finding because S.K. was considered adoptable, the therapists did not recommend returning her to Krecker’s custody, and his history indicated a risk of potential harm.

family law

In Jefferson v. State, Tony L. Jefferson, Jr. was convicted by a jury of possession of methamphetamine, cocaine, and clonazepam with intent to deliver, plus driving while intoxicated, and sentenced as a habitual offender to 48 years in prison. He appealed solely on the ground that the trial court erred by admitting testimony about his flight from officers executing an arrest warrant several weeks after the initial traffic stop and drug discoveries. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that evidence of flight was admissible under Rule 404(b) as proof of consciousness of guilt and was not unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403. The court further concluded that any error would have been harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including the controlled substances, more than $8,000 in cash, and multiple cell phones recovered from Jefferson. The case was remanded only to correct a clerical error on the sentencing order reflecting his habitual-offender status.

criminal lawprocedure

In McPherson v. State, James Lee McPherson was convicted by a Faulkner County jury of three counts of rape involving a victim under fourteen years old, based on the victim's testimony about multiple sexual encounters in 2014, along with Snapchat messages, recorded jail calls in which McPherson admitted guilt, and other evidence; he was sentenced to 900 months in prison. McPherson's appellate counsel filed a no-merit brief under Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k) and Anders v. California, asserting that the appeal lacked any meritorious issues and seeking to withdraw. The Arkansas Court of Appeals reviewed the full record, including challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence (denied directed-verdict motions), jury selection, and the admission of Snapchat messages and jail-call recordings, and concluded that none of the potential arguments had merit because the evidence was sufficient and the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The court therefore affirmed the convictions and granted counsel's motion to withdraw.

criminal law

This case was a boundary-line dispute in Craighead County, Arkansas, between adjacent landowners Irving and Malinda Smith and Lonnie and Flora Boatman. The Smiths purchased their property in 2011, surveyed it, removed an old wire fence that encroached several feet onto their land, and built a new fence near the surveyed boundary; the Boatmans then sued to quiet title, claiming they and their predecessors had owned the disputed strip by adverse possession and boundary by acquiescence after using and maintaining it (including gardening and harvesting pecans) since the fence was built around 1970. After a bench trial, the circuit court quieted title in the Boatmans, ordered the Smiths to relocate their fence, and awarded $400 in damages for a destroyed pecan tree. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Boatmans satisfied the requirements for adverse possession—including the hostility element—by showing continuous, open use and control of the land up to the fence for far more than the required seven years, with no contrary claims by the Smiths’ predecessors, and that any mistaken placement of the fence did not defeat the claim. Because the adverse-possession ruling was affirmed, the court did not address boundary by acquiescence.

property

In Mosley v. State, the Arkansas Court of Appeals reviewed the conviction of Mark Anthony Mosley for theft of property as a habitual offender after he was found guilty by a Washington County jury of stealing a Polaris Razor ATV worth about $14,000 from Williams Tractor in Fayetteville. Mosley appealed solely on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. The court affirmed, holding that circumstantial evidence was adequate to prove Mosley knowingly exercised unauthorized control over the property with the intent to deprive the owner. This included cell-phone records and tower data placing Mosley’s phone at the scene, surveillance footage showing a white SUV matching his vehicle, and testimony that he attempted to sell the ATV hours later in a U-Haul truck. The court applied the standard that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, need only be substantial to support the verdict.

criminal law

Cornell Taper, a former Forrest City police officer, was fired for failing to perform his duties and using excessive force against an arrestee. He sued the city and its current and former mayors under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, claiming he was denied due process before termination, and sought reinstatement plus damages; the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants. On appeal, Taper argued the trial court erred in finding no due-process violation. The Arkansas Court of Appeals did not reach the merits because the record filed on appeal was missing pages 99–155 (including exhibits and a DVD of the alleged excessive-force incident) and Taper’s addendum omitted the required DVD. The court therefore remanded the case to settle and supplement the record and addendum so the appeal could proceed.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Molly Bynum's appeal of a Stone County Circuit Court order terminating her parental rights to her two young children, Z.L. and H.B., after the Arkansas Department of Human Services had removed them due to dependency-neglect findings stemming from the father's drug use, the mother's prior threat to harm a child, and ongoing concerns about the mother's mental health and compliance. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the termination. The court held that sufficient evidence supported at least one statutory ground for termination—Bynum's failure to comply with the case plan and court orders, including inconsistent mental-health treatment and unstable housing—while also finding that termination served the children's best interests based on evidence of potential harm from her unresolved issues. The appellate court deferred to the trial court's credibility assessments and noted that only one ground was needed to uphold the decision.

family law

In Hamilton v. State, Lonnie Henry Hamilton, Jr. was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery and two counts of aggravated assault for robbing a bank in Lewisville, Arkansas, while armed with a handgun, firing shots during the crime, and fleeing with stolen money; as a habitual offender, he received an 85-year prison sentence. He appealed the Lafayette County Circuit Court’s rulings denying his motion to suppress his post-arrest confession, his request for a second mental evaluation, and his motion for a directed verdict. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that Hamilton knowingly waived his Miranda rights without requesting counsel, that the initial state hospital evaluation finding him competent to stand trial was sufficient and a second evaluation was not required, and that the evidence supported the jury’s verdicts.

criminal lawprocedure

In *Rainey v. State*, Thomas Rainey was convicted by a Dallas County jury of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia after police stopped a vehicle in which he was a passenger, found drugs and paraphernalia under his seat during a consent search, and obtained his post-arrest statement admitting ownership of the drugs. Rainey appealed the trial court's denial of his motions to suppress the physical evidence and his statement, arguing that the stop and search violated his Fourth Amendment rights and that his statement was obtained in violation of *Miranda* or was fabricated. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the traffic stop was justified by the driver's failure to use a turn signal and that the subsequent search was lawful based on the driver's consent. The court further held that Rainey's signed *Miranda* waiver and statement were voluntary under the totality of the circumstances, crediting the officer's testimony that Rainey was properly advised of his rights and chose to speak.

criminal lawprocedure

In Chambers v. Chambers, Allan Dewayne Chambers appealed a Yell County Circuit Court divorce decree that awarded his ex-wife Amy temporary and permanent spousal support, divided the couple’s limited marital property unequally, and ordered him to pay her attorney’s fees. The Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the entire decree. It held that the agreed temporary support order remained modifiable upon a showing of changed circumstances, such as Allan’s loss of employment, and that the circuit court had failed to reduce to writing its reasons for any unequal division of marital property as required by Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-12-315. Because the attorney-fee award rested on the now-vacated rulings, the court directed the trial court to reconsider fees on remand after addressing the support and property issues.

family lawproperty