Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Labor

Employee Killed While Returning from Break Covered
by Workers' Compensation Statutes

M. Sean Brister
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Mitchell ex rel. Wagner v. Tyson Poultry, Inc., 292 S.W.3d 848 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009), the Arkansas Court of Appeals upheld the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission's (Commission) ruling that Gerald Wagner's death while returning from break was compensable under Arkansas's workers' compensation statute.

Background

Wagner worked for Tyson Poultry, Inc. (Tyson) as a yard truck driver moving trailers around the Tyson facility and checking on the temperature of trailers. Id. He was given two unpaid breaks per day. Id. He usually took breaks in a different section of the facility where a friend worked rather than in his area of employment. Id. After breaks, Wagner reported to the office to get new instructions. Id. One day while returning from break, he was run over and killed in the yard. Id. Tyson "accepted the death as compensable and tendered workers' compensation benefits." Id. The administrator of Wagner's estate refused the payments and contested the matter to the Commission. Id. The Commission determined that Wagner was performing employment services and the death was compensable. Id. The administrator appealed the Commission's decision to this court. Id.

Arguments

Appellant argues that the Commission's determination was in error as a matter of law because the decedent was not performing employment services, and the Commission therefore lacked jurisdiction. Id. This argument is premised on the fact that the decedent was returning from an unpaid break, but had not yet arrived at the office to receive instructions and resume his employee duties. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

The court stated that the appellant's argument was not persuasive and that the issue has been previously addressed by the court. Id. It further explained that Arkansas's statute denies compensation when injuries to an employee occur at a time when employment services were not being rendered. Id. While "employment services" was not statutorily defined, the Arkansas Supreme Court had previously addressed the issue, holding that the test was whether the employee's injury occurred when the employee was "within the time and space boundaries of the employment, when the employee [was] carrying out the employer's purpose or advancing the employer's interest directly or indirectly." Id. (quoting Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sands, 91 S.W.3d 93 (Ark. Ct. App. 2002)). The court concluded that the decedent was in the yard, his assigned work area, returning to the office for instructions, an employment service, thus within the "time and space boundaries of his employment." Id. The court affirmed the determination of the Commission. Id.

The case was decided on February 11, 2009.