Sammons v. Williams (Majority)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 139 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CV-14-739 opinion Delivered M arch RONALD SAMMONS 4,2075 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION lNo. PAT WILLIAMS D/B/AJ.l.T. TRANSPORT AND TRANSPORT EXPRESS, L.L.C. 1 Gl104181 AFFIRMED 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 Arkansas d/b/aJ.I.T. Transport 'Workers' (l I.T.') did not qualify as an employer under the 'W'e affirm. Compensation Act. 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, Tennessee.J.LT. was a sole proprietonhip owned by Pat williams.l third partner in Transport 1 . lWilliams "closed" J.I.T. on June 10, 201'1. -williams is also a one- Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 139 On June B, materials 201.1., Transport 1 leased a truck to J.I.T. for Samrnons to transport 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 businesses. who worked for Arkansas Logistics, occasionally helped him with the 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 J.LT. but that he bought lunch forJones on several occasions. 'Williams testified that onJune 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." Armstrong, -Williams's 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 Sammons claims that the Commission erred when 3 it appeal, determined that (1) he was not an 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 and ignore those ofthe ALJ . See Freeman u. Con-Agra Frozen ofthe Commission 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. To qualifr under the Arkansas -Workers' 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 supports the Commission's finding that J.I.T. had only 'W'illiams. J.I.T.'s payroll sheets iist only Sammons as an tlvo case, substantial evidence employees, Sammons and employee in 2011. Even though testiEed thatJones was Jones occasionalty delivered paychecks and dispatched loads, Wiiliams 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 Worken' Compensation Act. AIErmed. HIxsoN and HoorvaN,lJ., agree. 6 as an employer under the Arkansas

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.