Title: Green v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Jimmy GREEN v. COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY

96-1059                                            ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered July 7, 1997


1.   Workers' compensation -- "quasi-course of employment" doctrine
     summarized. -- The "quasi-course of employment" doctrine
     includes activities undertaken by the employee following upon
     his or her injury that, although they take place outside the
     time and space limits of the employment and would not be
     considered employment activities for usual purposes, are
     nevertheless related to the employment in the sense that they
     are necessary or reasonable activities that would not have
     been undertaken but for the compensable injury.

2.   Workers' compensation -- prohibited-conduct test applied by
     appellate court -- appellant's injuries found compensable. --
     The court of appeals applied the prohibited-conduct test,
     which declares that when the injury following the initial
     compensable injury arises out of a quasi-course activity, such
     as a trip to the doctor's office, the chain of causation
     should not be deemed broken by mere negligence in the
     performance of the activity but only by intentional conduct
     that may be regarded as expressly or impliedly prohibited by
     the employer; because there was no proof that appellant's
     attempt to assist the stranded motorist was prohibited by his
     employer, the court of appeals held that appellant's injuries
     were compensable; accordingly, the court of appeals reversed
     the Workers' Compensation Commission's ruling and remanded the
     case for further proceedings.

3.   Workers' compensation -- issues of first impression not
     resolved without specific request or adequate legal argument -
     - request for review of court of appeals decision denied. --
     Where both appellee and appellant assumed that the "quasi-
     course of employment" doctrine was the appropriate standard to
     apply, even though the supreme court had never adopted it nor
     been asked to adopt it; where the supreme court had never
     determined the appropriate test for ascertaining whether a
     claimant has deviated from a "quasi-course of employment"
     journey; and where research indicated that there were several
     ways to analyze the fact pattern presented by the case, yet
     the parties failed to argue which standard should be adopted,
     the supreme court was hesitant to resolve such an important
     issue of first impression without a specific request to do so
     and without adequate legal argument upon which to base a
     decision; therefore, the supreme court found that the petition
     for review was improvidently granted; the supreme court
     declined appellee's request to review the decision of the
     court of appeals.  


     Appeal from Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission;
petition for review denied. 
     Searcy Wood Harrell, for appellant.
     Michael J. Dennis, for appellee.

     Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice.
     This is a workers' compensation case that we initially agreed
to review upon Coca-Cola Bottling Company's petition.  Upon further
examination, we conclude that the petition for review was
improvidently granted.  Accordingly, the petition is denied, and
the Court of Appeal's decision in Green v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.,
CA95-1117 (Ark. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 1996), remains the binding ruling
in this case.
     The underlying facts of this case are undisputed because the
parties presented the case to the Workers' Compensation Commission
on a stipulated record.  On July 1, 1992, Jimmy Green sustained a
compensable injury while working for the Coca-Cola Bottling Company
("Coca-Cola").  On March 23, 1993, Green traveled to his doctor's
office in Pine Bluff for an appointment regarding his earlier
injury.  When Green was approximately eight miles outside of Pine
Bluff, he observed an elderly woman experiencing car trouble on the
side of the highway.  Because Green was early for his appointment,
he decided to turn around in a private driveway so that he could
assist the stranded motorist.  While attempting to turn into the
driveway, Green was struck from behind and injured.  
     Green applied for workers' compensation benefits for the
injuries he sustained while traveling to the doctor's office.  The
Workers' Compensation Commission applied the "quasi-course of
employment" doctrine, which the Court of Appeals has previously
adopted and summarized as follows:
     activities undertaken by the employee following upon his
     or her injury which, although they take place outside the
     time and space limits of the employment, and would not be
     considered employment activities for usual purposes, are
     nevertheless related to the employment in the sense that
     they are necessary or reasonable activities that would
     not have been undertaken but for the compensable injury.
Preway, Inc. v. Davis, 22 Ark. App. 132,