Title: Agricultural Group-Compensation Self-Insured Fund v. Polk County Circuit Court

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

AGRICULTURAL GROUP-COMPENSATION SELF-INSURER
FUND v. POLK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

97-252                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered January 15, 1998


1.   Prohibition, writ of -- when appropriate. -- A writ of prohibition is
     an extraordinary writ that is appropriate only when the lower
     court is wholly without jurisdiction; when considering the
     propriety of issuing the writ, the supreme court's review of
     jurisdiction is limited to the pleadings.

2.   Prohibition, writ of -- encroachment on workers' compensation jurisdiction
     -- writ warranted. -- Where an encroachment on workers'
     compensation jurisdiction is clear, a writ of prohibition is
     warranted.

3.   Prohibition, writ of -- jurisdiction tested on pleadings. -- In
     considering whether a petition for writ of prohibition lies,
     jurisdiction is tested on the pleadings, not the proof. 

4.   Prohibition, writ of -- appellant failed to prove it was clearly entitled
     to remedy -- writ denied. -- Where it was disputed whether
     workers' compensation law was implicated in the case, the
     supreme court concluded that appellant had failed to meet its
     burden of demonstrating that it was clearly entitled to the
     remedy of prohibition; accordingly, the court denied the writ.


     Petition for Writ of Prohibition; denied.
     Friday, Eldredge & Clark, by:  Robert S. Shafer and Guy Alton
Wade, for petitioner.
     Mary M. Rawlins, for real party in interest Wellco Enters.,
Inc., d/b/a Wellco Feed Mill.

     W.H. "Dub" Arnold, Chief Judge.
     This is a petition for a writ of prohibition filed by petitioner Agricultural Group-
Compensation Self-Insurer Fund (þAgComp SIFþ), the workersþ compensation carrier for Wellco
Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Wellco Feed Mill.  The respondent is the Polk County Circuit Court.  We
deny the writ.
     On February 26, 1993, Wellco employee Donald Kenyon was injured while on the job. 
He filed a claim with the Workersþ Compensation Commission against Wellco and AgComp SIF,
a trust that provides workersþ compensation benefits to its members as a self-insured fund.  See
Ark. Code Ann.  11-9-404 (Repl. 1997).  When no further action was taken by any party, the
commission dismissed Mr. Kenyonþs claim without prejudice.  
     Thereafter, Wellco and its individual owner, John E. Wells, filed an action in Polk County
Circuit Court against AgComp SIFþs agent, the Agricultural Council of Arkansas, alleging that
Mr. Kenyon was an employee of Wellco at the time of his injury and that he was covered by
AgComp SIF insurance.  Wellco further alleged that the council fraudulently collected premium
payments and breached the partiesþ contract by refusing to pay compensation to Mr. Kenyon.  
     Wellco subsequently amended its complaint, substituting AgComp SIF as the sole
defendant.    Alleging breach of contract, Wellco sought  $7,821.28 in damages, representing the
amount it had paid for Mr. Kenyonþs medical expenses.  Attached to and incorporated in the
amended complaint was a copy of the AG-COMP SIF trust agreement.  AgComp SIF denied the
material allegations of the complaint and amended complaint and pleaded affirmatively that
Wellcoþs action was barred by the exclusive-remedy provision of the Workersþ Compensation
Act.  According to AgComp SIF, the Polk County Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to determine
Mr. Kenyonþs status as an employee or independent contractor and thus decide the case. 
AgComp SIF filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to reconsider on this basis, but the circuit
court denied both motions.  This petition for writ of prohibition followed.  
     In Travelers Ins. Co. v. Smith, 329 Ark. 336, 339-340, 947 S.W.2d 382 (1997), we
outlined the applicable standard of review in these cases as follows:
     A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary writ that is appropriate only when the lower
     court is wholly without jurisdiction.  Nucor Holding Corp. v. Rinkines, 326 Ark. 217, 931 S.W.2d 426 (1996); West Memphis Sch. Dist. No. 4 v. Circuit Court, 316 Ark. 290,