Sammons v. Williams

Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 139
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CV-14-739
RONALD SAMMONS opinion Delivered M arch 4,2075
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
COMMISSION
lNo. Gl104181
PAT WILLIAMS D/B/AJ.l.T.
TRANSPORT AND TRANSPORT 1 AFFIRMED
EXPRESS, L.L.C.
APPELLEES
RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge
In this appeal from the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission ("the
Commission"), appellant Ronald Sammons argues that the Commission erred when it
concluded that (1) he was not employed by Transport 1 Express, L.L.C. ("TransPort 1") and
(2) Pat \Villiams d/b/aJ.I.T. Transport (l I.T.') did not qualify as an employer under the
'Workers' 'W'e
Arkansas Compensation Act. affirm.
Ronald Sammons worked forJ.I.T. starting on August 20, 2010. His duties atJ.I.T.
included hauling coils 6om Blytheville, Arkansas, to West Memphis, Arkansas, and Memphis,
-williams
Tennessee.J.LT. was a sole proprietonhip owned by Pat williams.l is also a one-
third partner in Transport 1 .
lWilliams "closed"
J.I.T. on June 10, 201'1.
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 139
On June B, 201.1., Transport 1 leased a truck to J.I.T. for Samrnons to transport
materials to West Memphis. En route, Sammons's truck overtumed and struck another
vehicle, and Samrnons suffered a concussion and a hernia. Following the accident, Sammons
filed for worken' compensation benefits.
A hearing was held before an administrative lawjudge ('ALJ',) on Sammons's claim.
At the hearing, 'W'illiams testified that he ownedJ.I.T. and is also a co-owner ofTransport 1'
He stated that he and Sammons v/ere the only employees ofJ.I.T. He noted that Angela
Jones, a friend who worked for Arkansas Logistics, occasionally helped him with the
businesses. He further noted that Arkansas Logistics is a company where loads from J.I.T.
were delivered. He explained that Jones distributed paychecks to comPany drivers and
dispatched Sammons to jobs. Williams testified that Jones never received a paycheck from
'Williams testified that onJune
J.LT. but that he bought lunch forJones on several occasions.
g.2011,, the truck usually driven by Sammons forJ.l.T. was being repaired so he made an
agreement with his Transport 1 partner, Gary Armstrong, to lease a Transport 1 truck toJ'I.T.
He stated that he arranged for Sammons to deliver a load with the Transport 1 truck but
"nobody from Transport 1 ever told him what to do."
-Williams's
Armstrong, Transport 1 partner, also testifed at the hearing. He explained
that he did not have any ownenhip inJ.I.T. and never hired, supervised, or paid Sammons'
He explained that he agreed to lease the truck toJ.I.T. onJune 8,2011, because Transport
1 would receive tr,venry percent of the revenue Iiom the load delivery and the truck would
have been idle otherwise. He noted that the truck would have been idle because Transport
2
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 139
1's driver was on vacation.
Sammons testified that he started working forJ.I'T. on August 30,2010. He stated that
he received paychecks only fromJ.I.T. and he never received pay from Transport 1. Sammons
testified that onJune 8,2011, he drove a Transport 1 truck to deliver a coil load. He said it
was a hot day and the truck's air conditioning was not working. He also stated that he was
in and out of the tnrck all day and became dehydrated. He explained that, as he drove the
truck around a curve, he blacked out and collided with another vehicle. When asked who
employed him at the time of accident, Sammons responded, "Transport ' . ' I meanJ'I'T'"
However, Sammons later testified that, "as far as [he knew, he] was driving a Transport 1
truck and that's who [he] was working for" onJune 8,20L1.
on october 2, 2013, the ALJ issued an opinion based on the testimony at the hearing.
He determined that J.I.T. regularly employed three employees and thus qualifies as an
employer under the Arkansas workers' compensation Act. Specifically, the ALJ found that
'williams, andJones. The ALJ further determined that Sammons
J.LT. employed sammons,
was an employee of Transport 1 at the time of the accident and, therefore, Transport 1 was
responsible for Sammons's medical treatment. J.I.T. and Transport 1 appealed the ALJ's
decision to the Commission.
On May 7, 2014, the Commission revened the ALJ's decision and found that
Transport 1 did not employ Sammons andJ.I'T' employed rwo employees, Sammons and
Williams. Sammons then appealed the Commission's decision to this court. On appeal,
Sammons claims that the Commission erred when it determined that (1) he was not an
3
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 139
employee of Transport 1 and (2) J.I.T. had only nvo employees.
In appeals invoiving claims for workers' compensation, we view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the Commission's decision and affirm the decision if it is supported by
substantial evidence. Leach u. Cooper Tire & Rubbu Co., 2011' Ark. App. 571' Substantial
evidence exists ifreasonable minds could reach the Commission's conclusion. Id. The issue
is not whether the appellate court might have reached a diflerent result from the Commission;
if reasonable minds could reach the result found by the Commission, the appellate court must
effirm. Id. Credibiliry questions and the weight to be given to witness testimony are within
the Commission's exclusive province. Pack y. Little Rock Conuention Ctr. E Visitors Bureau,
201.3 Ark.186. Further, it is well settled that the ALJ's findings are irrelevant for purposes of
appeal, as this court is required by precedent to review only the findings ofthe Commission
and ignore those ofthe ALJ . See Freeman u. Con-Agra Frozen Foods,344 Ark.296, 40 S'1t/'3d
760 (2001).
Sammons 6rst argues that the Comrnission erred when it determined that he was not
an employee ofTransport 1 at the rime of the accident. Specifically, Sammons claims that he
was a dual employee for bothJ.I.T. and Transport 1 when the accident occurred. In making
his argument, Sammons claims that this case is "on all fours" withJo/rnson u. Bonds Fettilizer,
lnc.,375 A*.224,289 S.W.3d 431 (2008). ln Johnson, our supreme court determined that
a claimant was a dual employee when the evidence demonstrated that the claimant was
employed by both companies and completed work for both companies on the day of the
accident and both companies had the right to control the claimant's work.
4
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 139
Johnsonis distinguishable from the instant case. The following evidence was before the
Commission. Armstrong, a partner in Transport 1, testi6ed that he never hired, paid, or
controlled Sammons, and Sammons admitted that he never received a paycheck from
Transport 1. Further, Williams, the owner ofJ.LT., stated that he arranged the load to be
delivered by Samrnons on June 8, 2011, and "nobody from Transport 1 ever told him what
to do." This evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commission's conclusion,
supports the Commission's finding that Transport 1 did not employ Sammons.
Sammons next argues that the Comrnission erred when it determined thatJ.I.T. had
only trvo employees. Sammons claims thatJ.I.T. had three employees-Sammons, Williams,
and Jones-and thus qualifies as an employer under the Arkansas Worken' Compensation
Act.
-Workers'
To qualifr under the Arkansas Compensation Act, an employer must
regularly employ three or more individuals' Ark. Code Ann' S 11-9-102(11)(A) (Repl 2012)'
The determinative factor in ascertaining the requisite number of employees under the statute
is whether three persons are regularly employed in the same business. Stewart v. Cosby-Parsons
Quarter Horse Ranch,269 Ark.866,601. S.W.2d 590 (1980). In this case, substantial evidence
supports the Commission's finding that J.I.T. had only tlvo employees, Sammons and
'W'illiams. in 2011. Even though
J.I.T.'s payroll sheets iist only Sammons as an employee
Jones occasionalty delivered paychecks and dispatched loads, Wiiliams
testiEed thatJones was
not an employee of J.I.T. The Commission found williams's testimony credible, and
credibiliry questions are within the Commission's exclusive province. Pack,2013 Ark- 186.
5
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 139
Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the Comrnission's finding that J'I.T. regularly
employed only two employees and thus does not qualifi as an employer under the Arkansas
Worken' Compensation Act.
AIErmed.
HIxsoN and HoorvaN,lJ., agree.
6