CLAIM NO. F004559
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED JULY 27, 2001.
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by the HONORABLE GENE D. ADAMS, Attorney at Law, Jacksonville, Arkansas.
Respondents represented by the HONORABLE JOSEPH H. PURVIS, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Decision of the Administrative Law Judge: Vacated and remanded.
ORDER
The claimant appeals an opinion and order filed by the Administrative Law Judge on January 24, 2001. In that opinion and order, the Administrative Law Judge found that the preponderance of the evidence reflects that any injury to the claimant’s right upper extremity sustained on April 14, 2000 was sustained at a time when the claimant was not performing employment services. After conducting a de novo review of the entire record, we vacate the Administrative Law Judge’s decision and remand this case for reconsideration in light of the decision of the Arkansas Court of Appeals in Matlock v. Arkansas Blue Cross Blue Shield, CA 00-1153 (Ark.App. June 27, 2001).
The claimant was employed by the respondent as a truck driver. After weighing the various evidence, and making a credibility determination, the Administrative Law Judge determined that the claimant’s slip and fall at issue occurred while the claimant was walking from a restroom to his truck at a service plaza on a toll road in Beckley, West Virginia. Because the claimant was returning from a trip to the restroom at the time of the slip and fall, the Administrative Law Judge found that the preponderance of the evidence reflects that the claimant was not engaged in a primary activity which he was hired to perform or any incidental activity which was inherently necessary for the performance of his primary activity at the time his injury occurred. However, on June 27, 2001, the Court of Appeals handed down the decision in Matlock v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, supra, that set forth a list of factors to be considered when determining whether an employee is engaged in employment services. Because the parties and the Administrative Law Judge did not have theMatlock decision at their disposal prior to the hearing in this case, we remand this case to (1) permit the parties to advise the Administrative Law Judge whether additional evidence is necessary regarding the factors enumerated in Matlock, and so that (2) after considering the factors listed in Matlock and any additional evidence presented, the Administrative Law Judge may make more adequate findings regarding whether or not the claimant was engaged in employment services at the time his injury occurred.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________ ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman
______________________________ MIKE WILSON, Commissioner
______________________________ SHELBY W. TURNER, Commissioner