Title: Alvin Nelson v. Timberline International, Inc.; Crum & Forster, Carrier; and Second Injury Fund, on Review

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Alvie NELSON v. TIMBERLINE INTERNATIONAL,
INC.; Crum & Forster, Carrier; 
and Second Injury Fund

97-439                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered March 5, 1998


1.   Appeal & error -- review of court of appeals case. -- When the supreme
     court grants review following a decision by the court of
     appeals, it reviews the case as though the appeal was
     originally filed with the supreme court.

2.   Statutes -- construction -- stare decisis -- compelling reasons required
     for departure from prior interpretation. -- Under the doctrine of
     stare decisis, the supreme court follows its previous
     decisions construing a statute; nevertheless, stare decisis
     has never been applied mechanically to prohibit overruling
     prior decisions that have determined the meaning of statutes;
     the supreme court has, on occasion, departed from a prior
     statutory interpretation; the ultimate inquiry is whether
     there are compelling reasons for abandoning the prior judicial
     interpretation of a statute.

3.   Workers' compensation -- supreme court's review not precluded by Ark. Code
     Ann.  11-9-1001 -- interpretive function. -- The language of Ark.
     Code Ann.  11-9-1001 (Repl. 1996) did not preclude the
     supreme court's review of the liability of the Second Injury
     Trust Fund for permanent disability benefits under the statute
     because the court was not "liberalizing, broadening, or
     narrowing" the scope of the Workers' Compensation Act; rather,
     the court was merely interpreting a statutory provision
     allocating responsibility for benefits, which was clearly a
     function of the court. 

4.   Workers' compensation -- Second Injury Fund -- public purpose. -- The
     establishment of the Second Injury Trust Fund was for the
     stated public purpose of encouraging employment of disabled or
     handicapped workers by assigning liabilities for some wage-
     loss consequences of a second injury to the Fund.

5.   Workers' compensation -- Second Injury Fund -- limitation of employer's
     liability -- no resulting windfall to employers. -- The supreme court
     noted that if it interpreted the Second Injury Fund law to
     mean that an employer's liability would be limited to the
     actual anatomical impairment resulting from the last injury,
     there would be no windfall to employers because it is the
     employers themselves who contribute to the Fund. 

6.   Statutes -- construction -- basic rule. -- In considering the meaning
     of a statute, the supreme court construes it just as it reads,
     giving the words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning;
     the basic rule of statutory construction, to which all other
     interpretative guides must yield, is to give effect to the
     intent of the legislature; in attempting to ascertain
     legislative intent, the court looks to the language of the
     statute, the subject matter, the object to be accomplished,
     the purpose to be served, legislative history, and other
     appropriate matters that shed light on the matter.

7.   Workers' compensation -- Second Injury Fund -- provisions of Ark. Code Ann.
      11-9-525 clear and unambiguous. -- It is clearly expressed in Ark.
     Code Ann.  11-9-525 (Repl. 1996) that the purpose of the
     Second Injury Fund is to fully compensate an employee for his
     total injuries while simultaneously protecting employers from
     having to pay for injuries that did not occur while the
     employee was working for that employer; the statute clearly
     and unambiguously provides for the Second Injury Trust Fund to
     make up the balance of the employees' total benefits and the
     employer's share.

8.   Workers' compensation -- Second Injury Fund -- two earlier opinions wrongly
     decided. -- Based upon the flawed logic and incorrect
     assumptions regarding the solvency of the Second Injury Fund
     and a potential windfall to employers that buttressed the
     opinions, the supreme court concluded that McCarver v. Second
     Injury Fund, 289 Ark. 509,