Glass v. E Z Mart Stores Inc.

Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 761
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CV-13-659
JULIE GLASS Opinion Delivered December 18, 2013
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
V. COMMISSION
[NO. F900762]
E Z MART STORES, INC., and
AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE
COMPANY
APPELLEES AFFIRMED
RHONDA K.WOOD, Judge
This workers’ compensation case challenges the constitutionality of Ark. Code
Ann. § 11-9-113(b)(1) (Repl. 2012), which limits an employee’s claim for mental injury
or illness to twenty-six weeks of disability benefits. Specifically, appellant contends that
the statute is unconstitutional because there is no rational basis for treating mental injuries
differently from physical injuries in this regard. We find the statute constitutional and
affirm.
Appellant began working as a convenience-store cashier and clerk. After being on
the job for five days, she was physically assaulted and raped at work. Following the attack,
appellant filed a claim with the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission, claiming
entitlement to permanent and total-disability benefits due to her depression, anxiety, and
post-traumatic-stress disorder. Appellant also asserted that the limitation on benefits for
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 761
mental injuries found in Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-113(b)(1) was unconstitutional. The
administrative law judge found that the appellant was permanently and totally disabled, but
further found that the limiting statute was not unconstitutional. The full Commission
affirmed, and this appeal followed.
Acts of the legislature are presumed constitutional and the party challenging the
statute has the burden to prove otherwise. Archer v. Sigma Tau Gamma Alpha Epsilon, Inc.,
2010 Ark. 8, 362 S.W.3d 303 (2010). We resolve all doubts in favor of a statute’s
constitutionality. Id. We apply the rational-basis test to determine whether the legislature
acted in an arbitrary manner by separating one class of persons from another. Eady v.
Lansford, 351 Ark. 249, 92 S.W.3d 57 (2002). Under the rational-basis test, we presume
the legislation is constitutional and rationally related to achieving a legitimate
governmental objective under any reasonably conceivable fact situation. Archer, supra. If
the court determines that a rational basis exists, then the statute will withstand the
constitutional challenge. Id.
Our court examined the constitutional argument raised by appellant in Pat Salmon
& Sons, Inc. v. Pate, 2009 Ark. App. 272, 307 S.W.3d 46. In Salmon, this court found that
there were rational and legitimate purposes for distinguishing between mental and physical
injuries. We determined that mental injuries often cannot be confirmed by objective
findings, and the legislature could reason that this might result in a greater potential for
fraudulent claims. Id. Further, we held that the legislature could have reasonably decided
that permitting more extensive benefits for mental injuries would act as a disincentive for
2
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 761
workers suffering from legitimate mental injuries to devote themselves fully to treatment
and recovery. Id.
We sympathize with the circumstances surrounding appellant’s injuries. However,
it is not this court’s role to rewrite the legislation—it is for the legislature to reconsider the
appropriateness of the twenty-six-week limitation, and we encourage it to do so. Here,
appellant does not distinguish her argument from the failed argument in Salmon. We are
constrained by the doctrine of stare decisis to affirm and continue to find that Ark. Code
Ann. § 11-9-113(b)(1) is constitutional.
Affirmed.
HARRISON and GRUBER, JJ., agree.
Martin Law Firm, by: Aaron L. Martin, for appellant.
Mayton, Newkirk & Jones, by: Mike Stiles, for appellees.
3