{ "id": 6141568, "name": "Flavio Rios GUERRERO v. OK FOODS, INC.", "name_abbreviation": "Guerrero v. OK Foods, Inc.", "decision_date": "2006-03-01", "docket_number": "CA 05-865", "first_page": "333", "last_page": "336", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "94 Ark. App. 333" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "230 S.W.3d 296" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "333 Ark. 178", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 703770 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "recognizing that an appellant's tort claim was barred by the doctrine of election of remedies where the appellant had previously pursued and recovered workers' compensation benefits for the same injury" }, { "parenthetical": "recognizing that an appellant's tort claim was barred by the doctrine of election of remedies where the appellant had previously pursued and recovered workers' compensation benefits for the same injury" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/333/0178-01" ] }, { "cite": "356 Ark. 335", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 5368795 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/356/0335-01" ] }, { "cite": "286 Ark. 458", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8722146 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/286/0458-01" ] }, { "cite": "267 Ark. 91", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1719794 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "96" }, { "page": "27" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/267/0091-01" ] }, { "cite": "217 Ark. 350", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8720029 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1950, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "356" }, { "page": "32" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/217/0350-01" ] }, { "cite": "326 Ark. 691", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 12024334 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "694" }, { "page": "771" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/326/0691-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 Ark. App. 81", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6137593 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/94/0081-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 440, "char_count": 6801, "ocr_confidence": 0.769, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.5046715916883656e-08, "percentile": 0.28243210318439416 }, "sha256": "66883fe9e9338a55573d4c785aa0a299c6126ecd184386d10453887d0d766e16", "simhash": "1:14089d04ac05d4d8", "word_count": 1087 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:52:04.997483+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Glover and Crabtree, JJ., agree." ], "parties": [ "Flavio Rios GUERRERO v. OK FOODS, INC." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Sam Bird, Judge.\nAppellant Flavio Rios Guerrero appeals the trial court\u2019s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of appellee OK Foods, Inc., after Guerrero brought a tort action against OK Foods in the Sebastian County Circuit Court. On appeal, Guerrero asks this court to expand the intentional-tort exception to the exclusive-remedy doctrine under Arkansas workers\u2019 compensation law. We decline to do so; thus, we affirm.\nOn March 25, 2004, Guerrero was working at an OK Foods facility in Fort Smith, Arkansas, when his arm became entangled in a \u201ckill line conveyor system\u201d and was torn off. Guerrero subsequently received workers\u2019 compensation benefits, and on June 8, 2004, he filed a tort action against OK Foods in the Sebastian County Circuit Court. In his complaint, Guerrero alleged that, prior to his injury, he was ordered to wash a conveyer line with a trigger gun and nozzle hose system that was larger and exerted more pressure than the system he had previously used. He claimed that, as a result, he lost control of the gun and hose system, and the gun, hose, and his shirt became caught in the conveyor. Guerrero also alleged that he reported this incident to his supervisor, but the supervisor ignored him and ordered him to continue the practice of cleaning the conveyor with the larger hose.\nAccording to Guerrero\u2019s complaint, on March 25, 2004, Guerrero was cleaning the conveyor as ordered when the belt caught his arm and pulled him onto the conveyor. Guerrero claimed that he \u201cscreamed for help\u201d but no one responded, and that the system \u201clacked appropriate emergency stops.\u201d Guerrero alleged that the conveyor belt \u201cripped off\u2019 his arm, and he was eventually able to free himself. Guerrero asserted that the acts of OK Foods constituted an intentional tort for which he was entitled to damages.\nOn January 13, 2005, OK Foods filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that Guerrero had received workers\u2019 compensation benefits as a result of the accident and that his sole avenue for recovery was under Arkansas workers\u2019 compensation law. OK Foods argued that Guerrero was therefore barred by the exclusive-remedy doctrine from asserting a claim against OK Foods for negligence. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment, finding that Guerrero\u2019s claims were precluded by the exclusive-remedy doctrine of Arkansas workers\u2019 compensation law.\nOn appeal, Guerrero asks this court to expand the existing intentional-tort exception to the exclusive-remedy doctrine under Arkansas workers\u2019 compensation law. A trial court\u2019s conclusion on a question of law is reviewed de novo and is given no deference on appeal. Indus. Elec. Supply, Inc. v. Lytle Mfg., L.L.C., 94 Ark. App. 81, 226 S.W.3d 1 (2006).\nArkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-105 (Repl. 2002) provides that the rights and remedies granted to employees under the Arkansas Workers\u2019 Compensation Act are exclusive of all other rights and remedies that an employee has against an employer. In Brown v. Finney, 326 Ark. 691, 694, 932 S.W.2d 769, 771 (1996), our supreme court explained that \u201cthe reason for the exclusivity provision in [section 11-9-105] mirrors the general purpose behind our Workers\u2019 Compensation Act, which was to change the common law by shifting the burden of all work-related injuries from individual employers and employees to the consuming public with the concept of fault being virtually immaterial.\u201d\nOur supreme court has fashioned an exception to the exclusive-remedy doctrine in cases where an employer intentionally inflicts an injury upon an employee. In Heskett v. Fisher Laundry & Cleaners Co., 217 Ark. 350, 356, 230 S.W.2d 28, 32 (1950), the court held that a \u201cvicious, unprovoked, intentional and violent assault and battery upon appellant during the course of the employment\u201d entitled the appellant to either \u201cclaim compensation under the compensation act\u201d or to \u201ctreat the wilful assault as a severance of the employer-employee relationship and seek full damages in a common law action.\u201d This \u201cintentional-tort exception\u201d to the exclusive-remedy doctrine under our workers\u2019 compensation law has been narrowly construed. For example, in Griffin v. George\u2019s, Inc., 267 Ark. 91, 96, 589 S.W.2d 24, 27 (1979), our supreme court recognized that the exception only applies to acts \u201ccommitted with an actual, specific, and deliberate intent on the part of the employer to injure the employee,\u201d and that the employee\u2019s complaint must be \u201cbased upon allegations of an intentional or deliberate act by the employer with a desire to bring about the consequences of the act.\u201d See also Miller v. Ensco, 286 Ark. 458, 692 S.W.2d 615 (1985).\nHere, appellant makes a public policy argument that we should expand our intentional-tort exception \u201cto embrace patterns of fact such as the one at bar, thereby overturning a series of cases to the contrary.\u201d He cites cases from other jurisdictions that have allowed an exception in situations where the employer had knowledge that there was a substantial certainty of harm to the employee, and he urges us to adopt this standard or a similar standard. Furthermore, he claims that our current law does not guarantee an employee the right to a safe workplace, and he argues that precluding him from pursuing a tort action against OK Foods is contrary to the purposes of our workers\u2019 compensation law and to fundamental notions of justice.\nGuerrero\u2019s arguments are policy arguments that are for the legislature, not the courts, to consider. Our supreme court has repeatedly held that the determination of public policy lies almost exclusively with the legislature, and the courts will not interfere with that determination in the absence of palpable errors. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Henderson, 356 Ark. 335, 150 S.W.3d 276 (2004) (citations omitted). Therefore, Guerrero\u2019s arguments are more appropriately addressed to the legislature, not the appellate court. See id.\nWe also note that, even were we to agree with Guerrero, and if we had the ability to expand the intentional-tort exception, Guerrero is barred from pursuing a tort claim against OK Foods because he has already accepted workers\u2019 compensation benefits. See Gourley v. Crossett Pub. Sch., 333 Ark. 178, 968 S.W.2d 56 (1998) (recognizing that an appellant\u2019s tort claim was barred by the doctrine of election of remedies where the appellant had previously pursued and recovered workers\u2019 compensation benefits for the same injury). We therefore affirm.\nAffirmed.\nGlover and Crabtree, JJ., agree.", "type": "majority", "author": "Sam Bird, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Strieker Law Firm, PLLC, by: R. Theodor Strieker, for appellant.", "Friday, Eldredge & Clark, by: James M. Simpson and Kristopher B. Knox, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Flavio Rios GUERRERO v. OK FOODS, INC.\nCA 05-865\n230 S.W.3d 296\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 1, 2006\nStrieker Law Firm, PLLC, by: R. Theodor Strieker, for appellant.\nFriday, Eldredge & Clark, by: James M. Simpson and Kristopher B. Knox, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0333-01", "first_page_order": 359, "last_page_order": 362 }