{ "id": 6137738, "name": "Lowell FARNSWORTH v. WHITE COUNTY and Township of Cypert, et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Farnsworth v. White County & Township of Cypert", "decision_date": "1992-10-14", "docket_number": "CA 92-59", "first_page": "98", "last_page": "100", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "39 Ark. App. 98" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "839 S.W.2d 229" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-26-101", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "emphasis supplied" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-14-1202", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-14-1206", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-14-1301", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "38 Ark. App. 172", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6139669 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/38/0172-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 Ark. App. 248", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6140907 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/38/0248-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-14-1302", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 321, "char_count": 5021, "ocr_confidence": 0.915, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.961721986493819e-08, "percentile": 0.5373863495516534 }, "sha256": "e4e91c84023ce8725aff73423912a5c70be84e8c9af5f4de06dc805a7184bae0", "simhash": "1:024e8da2dcadce9e", "word_count": 801 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:16:17.678789+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Cracraft, C.J., and Cooper, J., agree." ], "parties": [ "Lowell FARNSWORTH v. WHITE COUNTY and Township of Cypert, et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Judith Rogers, Judge.\nThis is an appeal from the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission\u2019s order affirming and adopting the administrative law judge\u2019s decision finding that Lowell Farns-worth was not an employee of either of the appellees within the meaning of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Law. On appeal, appellant contends that the full Commission erred in affirming the administrative law judge\u2019s decision that the appellant was not an employee of either appellee within the meaning of the Arkansas Workers\u2019 Compensation Law. Because we agree with appellant\u2019s argument that he is a county official and thus entitled to workers\u2019 compensation, we reverse and remand.\nAppellant was duly elected as constable for Cypert Township, White County, Arkansas. While acting as constable on September 13, 1986, appellant approached someone riding a three wheeler (ATV) on a county road to inform the individual that this was an unlawful act. The individual and appellant argued and a struggle ensued when appellant tried to arrest the individual. During the altercation, appellant sustained a gunshot wound to his abdomen. From this injury arose a workers\u2019 compensation claim. Appellant argues that he is entitled to workers\u2019 compensation under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-26-101 (1987) which requires all counties \u201cto provide workers\u2019 compensation coverage for their officials, employees, and municipal volunteer fire fighters.\u201d\nThe Commission found that appellant did not fall within any of the three categories for whom the county is required to furnish workers\u2019 compensation. It was also noted that the definition of \u201cemployee\u201d cited by appellant in Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-14-1202 and \u00a7 14-14-1206 did not relate to coverage for workers\u2019 compensation purposes but rather involved personnel matters. We agree with the Commission that appellant was not an employee of the county as that term has been defined in Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-14-1206 (19878) due to the fact he was not receiving a salary. However, we disagree in regard to the finding that appellant was not an \u201cofficial\u201d of the county.\nTitle 14 of Arkansas Code Annotated is entitled \u201cLocal Government\u201d. Subtitle 2 under title 14 is entitled \u201cCounty Government\u201d. This subtitle is divided into chapters 13 through 26. The provisions regarding workers\u2019 compensation are found in chapter 26, which provides workers\u2019 compensation coverage for all county \u201cofficials, employees and municipal volunteer fire fighters.\u201d Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-26-101 (1987)(emphasis supplied). The term \u201cofficials\u201d is not defined in this specific chapter; however, chapter 14, subchapter 13 is named \u201cOfficers Generally\u201d. Pertinent to this case is Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-14-1301(b) which is entitled, \u201cCounty, quorum court district, and township officers\u201d, and states:\n(b) There shall be elected in each township, as preserved and continued in \u00a7 14-14-401, one (1) constable who shall have the qualifications and perform such duties as may be provided by law.\nAlso, this section includes other elected officials such as county judges, county clerks and sheriffs.\nThe first step in interpreting a statute is to construe it just as it reads by giving words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning. City of Fort Smith v. Tate, 38 Ark. App. 172, 832 S.W.2d 262 (1992). When interpreting an act, it is permissible to examine its title; parts of statutes relating to the same subject matter must be read in the light of each other. Reeder v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 38 Ark. App. 248, 832 S.W.2d 505 (1992). The workers\u2019 compensation chapter is within the same subtitle, county government, as the chapter referring to \u201cofficers generally\u201d. Constables' are included within this designation. The election of officers, and the term of years a constable shall hold office are set out in Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-14-1302 (1987). All of these statutes involve the same subject matter. Based on the plain meaning of the words, the titles of the sections and the subject matter involved we find that appellant, as a constable, is an official of the county and thus covered by workers\u2019 compensation. We therefore reverse and remand for an award of benefits not inconsistent with this opinion.\nAppellant has advanced other points in support of his argument; however, based on this finding we need not address them.\nReversed and Remanded.\nCracraft, C.J., and Cooper, J., agree.\nThe Commission also found that appellant was not entitled to temporary total disability benefits due to the fact he was not receiving any wages upon which an award could be based. This finding has not been challenged in this appeal; therefore, we express no opinion on the validity of this finding.", "type": "majority", "author": "Judith Rogers, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Anthony W. Bartels, for appellant.", "Rickard S. Smith, for appellee Township of Cypert.", "Matthews, Sanders, Liles, & Sayes, by: Marci Talbot Liles, for appellee White County." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Lowell FARNSWORTH v. WHITE COUNTY and Township of Cypert, et al.\nCA 92-59\n839 S.W.2d 229\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division I\nOpinion delivered October 14, 1992\n[Rehearing denied December 2, 1992.]\nAnthony W. Bartels, for appellant.\nRickard S. Smith, for appellee Township of Cypert.\nMatthews, Sanders, Liles, & Sayes, by: Marci Talbot Liles, for appellee White County." }, "file_name": "0098-01", "first_page_order": 122, "last_page_order": 124 }