{
  "id": 6136976,
  "name": "Geraldo RAMIREZ v. HUDSON FOODS, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ramirez v. Hudson Foods, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1996-03-27",
  "docket_number": "CA 95-242",
  "first_page": "49",
  "last_page": "52",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "53 Ark. App. 49"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "918 S.W.2d 207"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "319 Ark. 126",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1453592
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/319/0126-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 Ark. 397",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1646493
      ],
      "weight": 6,
      "year": 1954,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "405"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/224/0397-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-401",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 318,
    "char_count": 4608,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.793,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1748569125072543
    },
    "sha256": "7cf1ad2b803c21d89142e5b6561e0311b7d4466dd59e5503910435d6e803222e",
    "simhash": "1:224fc98b55cf921b",
    "word_count": 729
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:00:24.662479+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Cooper and Rogers, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Geraldo RAMIREZ v. HUDSON FOODS, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JOHN Mauzy Pittman, Judge.\nThe appellant, Geraldo Ramirez, appeals from a decision of the Arkansas Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission which denied his claim for benefits after he sustained an injury as a result of an encounter with a co-employee.\nThe Commission held that appellant\u2019s right-eye injury was noncompensable. Arkansas Code Annotated \u00a7 ll-9-401(a)(2) (1987) states that an injury is noncompensable if \u201csubstantially occasioned ... by willful intention of the injured employee to bring about the injury or death of himself or another.\u201d Appellant argues that the Commission\u2019s decision is not supported by substantial evidence as there is nothing to indicate that he had a willful intention to injure a co-worker.\nAppellant worked in the sanitation area of appellee\u2019s processing plant washing machinery with a water hose. Appellant\u2019s co-worker, Chester Moore, testified that he and appellant worked adjacent to each other and that Moore had reported to his supervisor an ongoing problem of co-workers spraying him with water. On March 22, 1993, Moore said that appellant sprayed him with water, but Moore did not think it was deliberate. Moore testified that he told appellant to stop getting him wet. When Moore continued to get sprayed with water, Moore aggressively warned appellant to stop getting water on him. Appellant, who has limited English and education, acted as if he did not understand. Appellant then struck Moore on his left cheek with an open hand. Moore said that the blow was not forceful enough to knock him down, to cause him to rock back, or to injure him. Moore then hit appellant in the right eye, causing serious injury.\nAppellant denied hitting Moore. Appellant stated that he was injured when he was pushed from behind, which caused him to fall forward and strike his face on the machinery.\nFor appellant\u2019s injury to be found noncompensable under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-401(a) (2) (1987), appellant must have had a \u201cwillful intention\u201d to \u201cinjure\u201d himself or another. A willful intention to injure denotes \u201cpremeditated or deliberate misconduct,\u201d rather than a sudden or impulsive act, and includes a physical force that is designed to inflict \u201creal injury.\u201d Johnson v. Safreed, 224 Ark. 397, 273 S.W.2d 545 (1954). A willful intent to injure obviously contemplates behavior of greater gravity and culpability than what may be characterized as aggression. Id. (quoting 1 A. Larson, Workmen\u2019s Compensation Law \u00a7 11.15(d)).\nThe Commission found that appellant\u2019s conduct was premeditated and rose to willful misconduct; thus, appellant\u2019s injury was noncompensable. On appeal of a workers\u2019 compensation case, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commission\u2019s decision and affirm if it is supported by substantial evidence. Plante v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 319 Ark. 126, 890 S.W.2d 253 (1994). Substantial evidence exists if reasonable minds could have reached the same conclusion. Id. Thus, before we reverse the Commission\u2019s decision, we must be convinced that fair-minded persons considering the same facts could not have reached the conclusion made by the Commission. Id.\nIn Johnson, supra, a dispute arose between the claimant and a co-worker. The claimant stated that he struck his co-worker because he felt threatened. The court held that the injury was compensable because the claimant\u2019s action was an impulsive light blow given in an attempt to protect himself and was not \u201cof that serious or deliberate character necessary or essential to evince a willful intention\u201d to injure. Johnson, 224 Ark. at 405. Although Johnson was decided before \u00a7 11-9-401 was enacted, we find its reasoning controlling. Arkansas Code Annotated \u00a7 11-9-401 does not define \u201cinjury.\u201d However, Johnson, supra, speaks of a \u201creal injury,\u201d and one of \u201cserious or deliberate character.\u201d Here, appellant\u2019s actions do not warrant a denial of benefits. Because we conclude that the Commission\u2019s decision is not supported by substantial evidence, we reverse and remand for an award of benefits.\nReversed and remanded.\nCooper and Rogers, JJ., agree.\nArkansas Code Annotated \u00a7 11-9-401(a)(2) (Supp. 1995), applicable to injuries sustained after July 1, 1993, states that there shall be no liability when the injury was \u201csubstantially occasioned by the willful intention of the injured employee to bring about such compensable injury.\u201d",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JOHN Mauzy Pittman, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wilson, Walker & Short, by: Joe C. Short, for appellant.",
      "Duncan & Rainwater, by: Robert A. Russell, Jr., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Geraldo RAMIREZ v. HUDSON FOODS, INC.\nCA 95-242\n918 S.W.2d 207\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division I\nOpinion delivered March 27, 1996\nWilson, Walker & Short, by: Joe C. Short, for appellant.\nDuncan & Rainwater, by: Robert A. Russell, Jr., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0049-01",
  "first_page_order": 73,
  "last_page_order": 76
}