David Newbern

The case concerned a workers' compensation claim for permanent partial disability benefits arising from repeated back injuries that began in 1974 while the claimant worked for ITT Higbie Manufacturing Co. The Commission ruled the claim was barred by the statute of limitations because more than two years had elapsed since the initial injury and more than one year since the last payment by the original carrier. The court reversed that decision, holding that the limitations period does not begin to run until the claimant knows or reasonably should know the nature and extent of the injury. Here, medical evidence showed the herniated disc diagnosis and permanent impairment assessment occurred in 1978 and 1979, so the May 1979 filing was timely.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved makers of a promissory note who were sued by the bank holding the note for the unpaid balance after the bank applied collateral following the sale of the furniture business funded by the loan. The makers defended by alleging fraud by the bank in its dealings, a material alteration of the note's payment terms, failure to assert a claim against sale proceeds under bulk transfer rules, and impairment of collateral. The court affirmed the judgment for the bank, holding that the chancellor correctly found no fraud proven, the alteration was a non-fraudulent scrivener's error, no duty to claim against the proceeds existed, and UCC provisions on discharge or impairment did not apply to release the makers.

business & regulatory

The case concerned an insurance dispute where a policyholder sought a statutory 12% penalty and attorney's fees under Ark. Stat. Ann. § 66-3238 after a fire destroyed his poultry house, which was mortgaged to the FHA for more than the $24,000 policy limit. The insurer paid the full amount to the FHA mortgagee over a year after the loss and formal demand, following negotiations over subrogation rights, but the circuit court awarded the penalty and fees to the insured. The court held that the statute applies to late payments made to a mortgagee, as such payments satisfy the insurer's obligation to the insured; informal demand was sufficient, the delay was not due to investigation or any justified cause, and the insured benefited from the payment reducing his debt. The court affirmed the award, finding no basis to deny the penalty even though the proceeds were pre-appropriated to the mortgage.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In Price v. State, the appellant was convicted of theft of an automobile valued over $2500 and sentenced to 20 years in prison plus a $15,000 fine. The appeal challenged the admission of evidence regarding prior offenses by the defendant and an accomplice, as well as the prosecutor's closing remarks analogizing to a drug trafficker. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence of other offenses was admissible under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show intent or motive, which the defendant had placed at issue by testifying, and that it met standards of clear and convincing proof with probative value outweighing prejudice. The court also found sufficient corroboration of the accomplice's testimony from other witnesses and determined the prosecutor's remarks were not inflammatory enough to require a mistrial.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, an employee injured on the job sued his employer, alleging that the company promised him full pay and benefits until he could return to work in exchange for his promise to resume work when able, and that he relied on this by building a wheelchair-accessible home; he also raised alternative claims of gift and contract implied in fact. The trial court sustained a demurrer and dismissed the complaint, finding insufficient facts to show valid consideration, an enforceable gift, or a third-party beneficiary relationship. On appeal, the court held that the mutual promises claim failed because the employee's admitted total and permanent disability made his promise to return to work impossible and thus illusory, and that the gift and implied contract allegations were also inadequate. However, the court reversed and remanded, ruling that the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action based on promissory estoppel or detrimental reliance, as the employee alleged reasonable action in building the home in reliance on the promise, which could be enforceable even without traditional consideration.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this workers’ compensation case, the claimant sought temporary total disability benefits after injuring his back at work in 1977 but the commission denied the claim for lack of substantial evidence showing disability, noting the claimant had sought little medical treatment over an extended period. The court affirmed the denial, holding that the commission’s decision rested on a substantial basis including the absence of any physician statements finding disability. The commission had allowed recovery of costs for chiropractic treatment, and the court also affirmed that ruling after finding the requirements for a change of physicians under Commission Rule 21 were satisfied.

labor & employmentprocedure