Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-207 (2026)

Research References

Ark. L. Rev.

Leflar, Compensation for Work-Related Illness in Arkansas, 41 Ark. L. Rev. 89.

Case Notes

Appeals.

Where the law judge reserved his ruling on the permanent disability issue, the Workers' Compensation Commission could not conduct a de novo review until the law judge had heard and decided that issue. Wooten v. Arkansas Aluminum Window & Door, Inc., 17 Ark. App. 209, 706 S.W.2d 198 (1986).

Although the commission has the statutory authority to require that parties specify all the issues to be presented for review, it also has the statutory duty to decide the issues before it on the basis of the record as a whole and to decide the facts de novo. Wilson v. Cargill, Inc., 45 Ark. App. 174, 873 S.W.2d 171 (1994).

The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission is not an appellate court; it is, instead, the fact finder, and as such has a duty and statutory obligation to make specific findings of fact on de novo review based on the record as a whole, and to decide the issues before it by determining whether the party having the burden of proof on an issue has established it by a preponderance of the evidence. Wilson v. Cargill, Inc., 45 Ark. App. 174, 873 S.W.2d 171 (1994).

Constitutional Issues.

Constitutional issues must be raised before the Commission in order to preserve them for appeal, and the Commission is required to rule on constitutional questions that are properly before it. Jefferson v. Munsey Prods., Inc., 55 Ark. App. 105, 930 S.W.2d 396 (1996).

Coverage Determination.

The Workers' Compensation Commission had jurisdiction to decide whether there was a Workers' Compensation policy in force at the time of the injury of farmworker and whether the worker was an employee. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Tuggle, 270 Ark. 106, 603 S.W.2d 452 (1980).

The commission has jurisdiction to pass upon questions relating to Workers' Compensation insurance policy when ancillary to the determination of the claimant's rights, including the coverage and its extent. Great Cent. Ins. Co. v. Mel's Texaco, 8 Ark. App. 236, 651 S.W.2d 101 (1983).

Where a third-party tort action was filed against a company based on the allegation that claimant was a special employee of the company, in granting a writ of prohibition the Court implicitly held that the special employee issue was to be decided by the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission as it had exclusive, original jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Act. Nucor Corp. v. Rhine, 366 Ark. 550, 237 S.W.3d 52 (2006).

Findings.

The commission is required to rule on constitutional questions that are properly before it in order to provide the appeals court with fact-findings sufficient to decide the constitutional issue. Green v. Smith & Scott Logging, 54 Ark. App. 53, 922 S.W.2d 746 (1996).

Merits of an issue relating to an authorized treating physician were not considered because the issue was not raised or ruled on below. The Workers' Compensation Commission made no finding on whether appellants were responsible for paying for the treatment under the change-of-physician provisions in § 11-9-514. Ark. Dep't of Parks & Tourism v. Price, 2016 Ark. App. 109 (2016).

Findings.

Workers' Compensation Commission's decision affirming the administrative law judge's finding that an employee was entitled to permanent anatomical impairment was reversed and remanded where the commission failed to make the specific findings of fact necessary for the reviewing court to carry out a meaningful review of issues relating to whether the employee's injury was the major cause of his impairment, the permanency of the employee's condition, the assessment of the medical evidence, and the employee's impairment rating. Excelsior Hotel v. Squires, 83 Ark. App. 26, 115 S.W.3d 823 (2003).

Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission had full authority under subdivision (a)(5) of this section to make a determination as to which one of two employers the employee was working for at the time of the accident. Johnson v. Bonds Fertilizer, Inc., 365 Ark. 133, 226 S.W.3d 753 (2006).

Jurisdiction over Carrier.

Jurisdiction of the commission over the employer also gave it jurisdiction over the insurance carrier. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Tuggle, 270 Ark. 106, 603 S.W.2d 452 (1980).

Lump-Sum Settlements.

The Workers' Compensation Commission is granted broad discretionary powers in approving lump-sum settlements and unless that discretion was abused or substantial evidence was lacking, its decisions will not be overturned on review. Stiles v. Reynolds Metals Co., 263 Ark. 321, 564 S.W.2d 520 (1978).

Even though claimant, who desired lump-sum settlement, wisely invested his money, it was not an abuse of discretion for Workers' Compensation Commission to deny the settlement. Stiles v. Reynolds Metals Co., 263 Ark. 321, 564 S.W.2d 520 (1978).

Overpayment of Benefits.

Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission did not err in approving a three-percent offset for overpayment of a claimant's permanent anatomical impairment rating to the insurer against the claimant's future benefits because the Commission had the full power and authority under subdivision (a)(7) of this section to order the reimbursement of employers for amounts advanced and because sound policy reasons existed for awarding credit for an overpayment of benefits. Maulding v. Price's Util. Contrs., Inc., 2009 Ark. App. 776, 358 S.W.3d 915 (2009), rehearing denied, 2010 Ark. App. 51 (2010), review denied, — Ark. —, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Ark. LEXIS 222 (Apr. 22, 2010), review denied, — Ark. —, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Ark. LEXIS 227 (Apr. 22, 2010).

Remand.

The commission is authorized to take testimony by deposition or other means under subdivision (a)(10) or to remand the matter to the judge for the purpose of taking additional evidence under § 11-9-704(b)(7). Quinn v. Webb Wheel Prods., 52 Ark. App. 208, 915 S.W.2d 740 (1996).

Cited: Ward Furn. Mfg. Co. v. Reather, 234 Ark. 151, 350 S.W.2d 691 (1961); Tri State Ins. Co. v. Employers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 254 Ark. 944, 497 S.W.2d 39 (1973); Mohawk Rubber Co. v. Buford, 259 Ark. 614, 535 S.W.2d 819 (1976); Wallis v. Whirlpool Corp., 12 Ark. App. 101, 671 S.W.2d 760 (1984); Webb v. Workers' Comp. Comm'n, 286 Ark. 399, 692 S.W.2d 233 (1985); Thornton v. Bruce, 33 Ark. App. 31, 800 S.W.2d 723 (1990); TEC v. Falkner, 38 Ark. App. 13, 827 S.W.2d 661 (1992).