Court Opinion

ID: 9770478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:06:12.638525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:17.709427
License: Public Domain

Robinson, J., dissenting. It can be seen from the majority opinion that this is a close case; in fact the majority says: “Portions of the testimony in this case can be interpreted as indicating compensability while other portions, and in some instances the same testimony, can be interpreted as indicating non-compensability; but we think the latter view prevails.” In circumstances where the question is so close, I think the employee should be given the benefit of the doubt. We have held many times that the women’s Compensation Law should be broadly and liberally construed, and that doubtful cases should be resolved in favor of the claimant. Scobey, Adm. v. Southern Lumber Commpany, 218 Ark. 671, 238 S. W. 2d 640, 243 S. W. 2d 754; Triebsch v. Athletic Mining & Smelting Co., 218 Ark. 379, 237 S. W. 2d 26; Hunter v. Summerville, 205 Ark. 463, 169 S. W. 2d 579; Elm Springs Canning Co. v. Sullins, 207 Ark. 257, 180 S. W. 2d 113; Nolen v. Wortz Biscuit Co., 210 Ark. 446, 196 S. W. 2d 899; and Batesville White Lime Co. v. Bell, 212 Ark. 23, 205 S. W. 2d 31. Mr. Justice Millwee joins in this dissent.