Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_04-cv-00090/USCOURTS-ared-3_04-cv-00090-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Eastern District of Arkansas

U.S. Post Office & Courthouse

P. O. Box 3684

Little Rock, Arkansas 72203

G. Thomas Eisele

 Senior Judge

July 18, 2005

LETTER ORDER

Glenn Lovett, Jr. 

Snellgrove, Langley, Lovett and Culpepper 

111 East Huntington 

Post Office Box 1346 

Jonesboro, AR 72403-1346

David W. Cahoon 

Attorney at Law 

519 West Washington Avenue 

Post Office Box 1594 

Jonesboro, AR 72403 

Re: Curtis Barrett v. Doin Bowers, Jr.,

 Case No. 3:04-CV-0090

Dear Counsel:

In anticipation of the August 8, 2005 trial date of this matter, the Court would like to

resolve a preliminary issue that has not been addressed heretofore by either party. Under the

exclusive remedy provision of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act, Ark. Code § 11-9-105,

an injured employee must submit a claim to the Workers’ Compensation Commission

(“Commission”) prior to seeking relief in court. As explained by the Arkansas Supreme Court:

We hold that the exclusive remedy of an employee or her

representative on account of injury or death arising out of and in

the course of her employment is a claim for compensation under §

11-9-105, and that the commission has exclusive, original

jurisdiction to determine the facts that establish jurisdiction, unless

the facts are so one-sided that the issue is no longer one of fact but

one of law, such as an intentional tort.

VanWagoner v. Beverly Enterprises, 334 Ark. 12, 15, 970 S.W.2d 810, 812 (Ark. 1998).

The parties are in agreement here that, at the time of the injury, Plaintiff was an employee

of Defendant and was engaged in activities within the scope of his employment. The Court notes

Case 3:04-cv-00090-GTE Document 19 Filed 07/19/05 Page 1 of 2
2

that the pleadings do not reflect whether Plaintiff sought relief from the Commission. Do the

parties contend that this action is not subject to the normal requirement of the Workers’

Compensation Act, and if so, why?

Please respond no later than Friday, July 22, 2005.

Cordially yours, 

/s/Garnett Thomas Eisele

G. Thomas Eisele

Case 3:04-cv-00090-GTE Document 19 Filed 07/19/05 Page 2 of 2