South Central Arkansas Drug Task Force v. Ray

SOUTH CENTRAL ARKANSAS DRUG TASK FORCE, et
al. v. Keith RAY

CA 96-126                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                  Court of Appeals of Arkansas
                           Division IV
               Opinion delivered February 5, 1997


1.   Workers' compensation -- Public Employee Workers' Compensation Act --
     appellee was "state employee" and therefore "public employee" entitled to
     compensation. -- Where the evidence demonstrated that all funds
     to be disbursed to appellant drug task force were handled by
     the state through the State Treasury; where the state provided
     health and retirement benefits to individuals such as
     appellee; where appellee was a police officer certified by the
     state and worked in a program operated by a state officer;
     where the stated purpose of the Public Employee Workers'
     Compensation Act is to provide coverage for public employees
     not covered by a private entity; and where it was undisputed
     that appellee was without the benefit of private compensation
     coverage, the appellate court concluded that, from the
     particular facts presented in the case, appellee was a "state
     employee" and therefore was a "public employee" entitled to
     compensation under the Act.

2.   Workers' compensation -- standard of review -- Commission's determination
     that appellee qualified as state employee supported by substantial
     evidence. -- The findings of the Workers' Compensation
     Commission must be upheld on review if there is substantial
     evidence to support them; before the appellate court can
     reverse a decision of the Commission, it must be convinced
     that fair-minded persons with the same facts before them could
     not have reached the same conclusion reached by the
     Commission; the appellate court held that the Commission's
     determination that appellee qualified as a state employee was
     supported by substantial evidence and affirmed its order
     directing the Public Employee Claims Division to provide
     workers' compensation benefits to appellee.


     Appeal from Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission;
affirmed.
     Richard S. Smith, for appellants.
     McMillan, Turner, McCorkle & Curry, by: Ed McCorkle, for
appellee.

     John B. Robbins, Chief Judge.
     Appellee Keith Ray is an employee of appellant South Central
Arkansas Drug Task Force (SCDTF).  On June 29, 1993, Mr. Ray was
involved in a drug raid and injured his right knee while attempting
to kick in a door.  He subsequently underwent knee surgery and
incurred medical expenses for his treatment.  Mr. Ray filed for
workers' compensation benefits, but compensation was controverted
by the Public Employee Claims Division (PECD) based on its
assertion that Mr. Ray was not a state employee.  Alternatively,
the PECD contended that, even if Mr. Ray was considered a state
employee, benefits should be denied because the SCDTF and its
employees are not covered under the Public Employee Workers'
Compensation Act (PEWCA).  After a hearing, the Workers'
Compensation Commission found Mr. Ray to be a state employee and
awarded compensation.  In addition, the Commission found that, even
if Mr. Ray were not a state employee, he would still have been
entitled to compensation as a public employee within the intent of
the legislature when it enacted PEWCA.
     SCDTF and PECD now appeal the decision of the Commission.  For
reversal, the appellants argue that the Commission erred in finding
that Mr. Ray is a state employee within the meaning of PEWCA.  In
addition, the appellants contend that the Commission erred in
finding that, even if Mr. Ray is not a state employee, he would
nonetheless be covered by the Act for purposes of receiving
workers' compensation benefits.  We affirm.
     At the hearing before the Commission, Mr. Ray testified on
his own behalf.  He stated that he is a certified Arkansas police
officer and had been working for SCDTF for approximately four years
prior to his injury.  Mr. Ray indicated that the group he works
with has five employees and is supervised by Joe Thomas.  The
program is directed by the prosecutor's office for the Eighth
Judicial District, and Mr. Ray's paychecks are drawn against the
prosecutor's office.
     Brent Haltom, Prosecuting Attorney for the Eighth Judicial
District, also testified.  He stated that the program is funded by
grant money, which he receives from the state.  Because Mr. Haltom
is a state official, the state matches certain funds that are
provided by the federal government through a federal grant program. 
According to Mr. Haltom, the funds appropriated for 1993 included
$228,204.00 from the federal government and $76,068.00 from the
State of Arkansas.  Mr. Haltom did not use any of this money to
purchase workers' compensation insurance for the agents of SCDTF
because he considered the agents to be state employees covered by
PECD.  He based this belief, in part, on the fact that Mr. Ray and
other agents were provided with health and retirement benefits by
the State of Arkansas.
     Sandra Rodgers, fiscal officer for SCDTF, testified that she
sends in a request and receives a check directly from the state. 
According to Ms. Rodgers, all of the federal and state funds
appropriated for the program are deposited by the Department of
Finance and Administration into the State Treasury.  The money is
then disbursed upon request for operating expenses and salaries for
the agents.
     Roland Robinson, Assistant Director for PECD, testified on
its behalf.  He acknowledged that prosecuting attorneys are
constitutional officers and are covered by the PECD.  However,
he stated that, to his knowledge, no PECD funds are available to
pay claims for employees of a drug task force operating under the
direction of a prosecutor.
     In awarding compensation against PECD, the Commission cited
PEWCA, which is codified at Ark. Code Ann.  21-5-601 (Repl. 1996)
et seq.  Arkansas Code Annotated  21-5-602 (Repl. 1996) explains
the legislative intent of the Act and provides, in pertinent part:
       It is the purpose of this subchapter to:
       (1) Provide workers' compensation coverage through
     state funds for all public employees, as defined in this
     subchapter, who are not otherwise covered under a
     workers' compensation liability insurance policy written
     and issued by a private workers' compensation liability
     carrier[.]
"Public Employee" is defined by Ark. Code Ann.  21-5-603 (Repl.
1996), which provides in pertinent part:
       (a) The term "public employee", as used in this
     subchapter, unless the context otherwise requires,
     includes:
       (1)  State Employees and Officers.  Any officer or employee
     of any state agency, board, commission, department,
     institution, college, university, or community college
     receiving an appropriation for regular salaries, extra
     help, or authorized overtime payable from funds deposited
     in the State Treasury or depositories other than the
     State Treasury by the General Assembly, provided that
     inmates of state correctional facilities who perform work
     for the state while incarcerated or while on a work-
     release program shall not be considered state
     employees[.]

The Commission determined that Mr. Ray was a state employee for
purposes of the Act and, therefore, was entitled to benefits.
     For reversal, the appellants first argue that the Commission
erred in finding Mr. Ray was a state employee.  Specifically, the
appellants maintain that drug task forces are not covered by the
Act because most of the financing comes from federal sources,
including the financing that is appropriated for the agents'
salaries.  The appellants contend that workers' compensation
coverage for such individuals, if there is to be any, should come
out of the funds received for operation of the task forces.
     We find the first argument raised by the appellants to be
unpersuasive.  As the appellee points out, if the State of Arkansas
does not provide compensation coverage for individuals such as he,
this would result in all drug task force workers of this state
working without the benefit of workers' compensation.  We find that
Mr. Ray qualifies as a state employee, and that his compensation
was correctly assessed against the PECD.
     The evidence in this case demonstrated that all funds to be
disbursed to the SCDTF were handled by the state through the State
Treasury.  Moreover, the state provided health and retirement
benefits to individuals such as Mr. Ray.  Mr. Ray is a police
officer certified by the state, and he works in a program operated
by a state officer.  The stated purpose of the Act is to provide
coverage for public employees not covered by a private entity.  In
the case at bar, it is undisputed that Mr. Ray was without the
benefit of private compensation coverage.  Furthermore, from the
particular facts presented in this case, it is apparent that he is
a "state employee" and therefore is a "public employee" entitled to
compensation under the Act.
     The findings of the Workers' Compensation Commission must be
upheld on review if there is substantial evidence to support them. 
Scarbrough v. Cherokee Enterprises, 306 Ark. 641, 816 S.W.2d 876
(1991).  Before we can reverse a decision of the Commission, we
must be convinced that fair-minded persons with the same facts
before them could not have reached the same conclusion reached by
the Commission.  Public Employee Claims Division v. Tiner, 37 Ark.
App. 23, 822 S.W.2d 400 (1992).  In the instant case, we find the
Commission's determination that Mr. Ray qualified as a state
employee is supported by substantial evidence.
     The appellants' remaining argument is that the Commission
erred in determining that, even if Mr. Ray was not a state
employee, he nevertheless was entitled to coverage as a public
employee.  However, due to our disposition of the first issue on
appeal, we need not address this argument.  The Commission's order
directing PECD to provide workers' compensation benefits to Mr. Ray
is affirmed. 
     Affirmed.
     Neal and Roaf, JJ., agree.