Court Opinion

ID: 9638918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:58:28.266376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:10.602456
License: Public Domain

Melvin Mayfield, Judge, concurring. I concur in the majority’s decision because I think this case comes under the traveling employee doctrine and that the specific issue •involved is governed by the rule set out in J & G Cabinets v. Hennington, 269 Ark. 789, 792, 600 S.W.2d 916 (1980), that “Activities of a personal nature, not forbidden but reasonably to be expected, may be a material incident of the employment and injuries suffered in the course of such activities are compensable.” When viewed in the light most favorable to the findings of the Commission, Clark v. Peabody Testing Service, 265 Ark. 489, 579 S. W.2d 360 (1979), I believe there is substantial evidence from which the Commission could find that appellee’s injury resulted from activity reasonably to be expected.