Melvin Carpenter v. Sario Mondragon (Deceased)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
JOHN M AUZY PITTM AN, CHIEF JUDGE
DIVISION III
CA06-1194
May 23, 2007
MELVIN CARPENTER
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
W O R KE R S ’ C O M P E N S ATION
COMMISSION [NO. F313638]
V.
SARIO MONDRAGON (DECEASED)
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
This is an appeal from an award of workers’ compensation medical and funeral
expenses to the family of an employee killed on the job site. On appeal, the appellantemployer asserts that the evidence is insufficient to show that the decedent was performing
employment services at the time of his death. We affirm.
In reviewing decisions from the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission, the
appellate court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the
light most favorable to the Commission's findings, and we affirm if the decision is supported
by substantial evidence. Swearengin v. Evergreen Lawns, 85 Ark. App. 61, 145 S.W.3d 830
(2004). Substantial evidence exists if reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion. Id.
Here, there was evidence that the decedent had been employed by appellant moving,
repairing, and refinishing furniture. Some of this work was performed outdoors. Employees
were required to return all tools and furniture to the indoor shop at the end of the day as a
security measure to prevent theft. Chris Carpenter, grandson of appellant and a co-worker of
the decedent, had been permitted to practice archery outside the workshop when it was time
for other workers to return materials to the shop at the end of a day. On the day in question,
the decedent walked around the corner of the shop and was struck in the eye with an arrow
loosed by Chris Carpenter. The decedent was transported to the hospital for treatment but died
of his wound.
The decedent’s family sought medical benefits and funeral expenses incurred because
of the decedent’s death.
The Commission found that the decedent was performing
employment services at the time that he was injured based on evidence that the decedent still
had work to do outside the shop, that he was outside the shop at the time of the accident, and
that, soon after the fatal accident, some furniture remained outdoors and the workshop had not
been closed. Appellant argues that this finding is not supported by substantial evidence because
there was no direct evidence of precisely what the decedent intended to accomplish while
walking outside the shop when he was killed. This argument fails.
An employee is performing “employment services” when he or she “is doing something
that is generally required by his or her employer.” White v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 339 Ark.
474, 478, 6 S.W.3d 98, 100 (1999). Our supreme court has declared that the test for
-2-
CA06-1194
determining whether an employee was performing employment services at the time of an injury
is the same as that for determining whether the employee was acting within the course of
employment: “whether the injury occurred within the time and space boundaries of the
employment, when the employee [was] carrying out the employer's purpose or advancing the
employer's interest directly or indirectly.” Pifer v. Single Source Transportation, 347 Ark.
851, 857, 69 S.W.3d 1, 4 (2002). Circumstantial evidence can suffice to establish that one was
engaged in an activity within the course of his employment at the time of injury. Franklin
Collier Farms v. Bullard, 33 Ark. App. 33, 800 S.W.2d 438 (1990); see Eagle Safe Corp.
v. Egan, 39 Ark. App. 79, 842 S.W.2d 438 (1992) (a person’s intent may be shown by
circumstantial evidence). The evidence relied upon by the Commission in this case, though
circumstantial, is quite clearly a sufficient basis for reasonable minds to conclude that the
decedent was performing employment services at the time of the injury that caused his death.
Affirmed.
B IRD and GRIFFEN, JJ., agree.
-3-
CA06-1194
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
