{ "id": 1600546, "name": "Marceline PEARSON, widow of Robert Olen Pearson, deceased et al v. LAKE LAWRENCE PULPWOOD CO. and AMERICAN MUTUAL LIABILITY INS. CO.", "name_abbreviation": "Pearson v. Lake Lawrence Pulpwood Co.", "decision_date": "1969-12-08", "docket_number": "5-5039", "first_page": "776", "last_page": "779", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "247 Ark. 776" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "447 S.W.2d 661" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "368 S. W. 2d 270", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10159876, 1681342 ], "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sw2d/368/0270-01", "/ark/236/0808-01" ] }, { "cite": "236 Ark. 808", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1681342 ], "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/236/0808-01" ] }, { "cite": "237 Ark. 854", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1738009 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/237/0854-01" ] }, { "cite": "226 Ark. 54", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8717515 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/226/0054-01" ] }, { "cite": "233 Ark. 629", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1691688 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/233/0629-01" ] }, { "cite": "238 Ark. 499", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1734328 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/238/0499-01" ] }, { "cite": "245 Ark. 168", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1606785 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/245/0168-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 369, "char_count": 6210, "ocr_confidence": 0.559, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1420408488207926e-07, "percentile": 0.578952672530329 }, "sha256": "2b2d285a2f9c1b5cb24c51a56814c1194df08f9d9df86cd8778339309ab2456e", "simhash": "1:15efd46cc8eb075f", "word_count": 1011 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:32:29.213565+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Marceline PEARSON, widow of Robert Olen Pearson, deceased et al v. LAKE LAWRENCE PULPWOOD CO. and AMERICAN MUTUAL LIABILITY INS. CO." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nThe appellants, the widow and dependent children of Robert Olen Pearson, are claimants for workmen\u2019s compensation benefits. The referee and the full commission found that the decedent was not an employee of appellee Lake Lawrence Pulpwood Company and denied compensation. The circuit court affirmed the commission\u2019s action.\nOn appeal appellants first contend that the decedent was an employee of the appellee pulpwood company. Although we are committed to the well established rule that we liberally construe the provisions of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act in favor of the workman, we must accord to the findings of the commission the verity of a jury verdict and affirm where there is any substantial evidence to support its action. Herman Wilson Lbr. Co., et al v. Lester Hughes, 245 Ark. 168, 431 S. W 2d 487 (1968); McCollum v. Rogers, 238 Ark. 499, 382 S. W. 2d 892 (1964). In applying this rule to the facts of this case, we cannot agree with the appellants.\nIn the ease at bar the appellants\u2019 decedent was a pulpwood hauler or \u201cproducer.\u201d He purchased uncut timber with his own money and employed and paid with his own funds his helpers who cut the timber and assisted him. He owned and maintained his equipment which consisted chiefly of his truck and power saw. He was paid a verbally agreed sum of money for each cord whenever he cut, loaded and hauled pulpwood to the appellee\u2019s place of business. Decedent was fatally injured when his loaded truck left the highway en route to the unloading site. He had hauled pulpwood for the appellee for several years. He was not a \u201csteady hauler\u201d since he sometimes hauled for others. It appears that the method of cutting, loading and hauling of the logs was within the control and discretion of the decedent. Nor does it appear that appellee employer was ever present at a site where the cutting, loading and hauling of the pulpwood were being done. In these circumstances there was substantial evidence to support the commission\u2019s denial of compensation on the basis that the decedent was not an employee of the appellee pulpwood company. West v. Lake Lawrence Pulpwood Co., 233 Ark. 629, 346 S. W. 2d 460 (1961).\nThe appellants next assert that even though the decedent is said not to be an employee, he was nevertheless covered by workmen\u2019s compensation insurance by a contractual agreement between the parties. Further, that if the appellee pulpwood company was not responsible as an employer, then the insurance carrier was directly responsible. The appellee pulpwood company\u2019s workmen\u2019s compensation policy provided coverage to employees for its logging operations and used a payroll method for premium computation purposes. Even if we were to consider as competent the evidence adduced by the appellants that decedent understood that deductions were made from his pay and that insurance coverage was provided him by appellee pulpwood company, we must affirm the commission\u2019s findings since this issue was disputed by substantial evidence. The appellee pulpwood company\u2019s owners, Lake and Bill Lawrence, testified there definitely was no deduction from decedent\u2019s payments for insurance coverage or any other purpose and the haulers or \u201cproducers\u201d were told they were not individually covered by workmen\u2019s compensation insurance. This was corroborated by other haulers or \u201cproducers.\u201d\nTypical of the cases relied upon by appellants is Hollingsworth & Frazier v. Barnett, 226 Ark. 54 287 S. W. 2d 888 (1956). There Frazier daily supervised and controlled the work of the skidders and haulers and said he considered them his employees. The commission awarded compensation and we affirmed on the basis there was substantial evidence to support the finding of the commission. Also cited is Hale v. Mansfield Lbr. Co., 237 Ark. 854, 376 S. W. 2d 670 (1964). There Hale\u2019s contract provided for the payment of his workmen\u2019s compensation insurance premium by Mansfield. We do not agree with appellants that these cases are controlling in the case at bar.\nAppellants contend that the appellees are estopped to deny compensation to appellants. Again the appellants argue that the appellee pulpwood company made deductions from decedent\u2019s payments and that the appellee insurance carrier received these deductions as premiums based upon the quantity of pulpwood hauled by decedent. As we have indicated, this was disputed by competent evidence. Also, there was evidence by the appellee pulpwood company that the workmen\u2019s compensation premiums on its policy were \u201ccomputed under a three year retrospective rating plan\u201d and that \u201cthis did not include wood being processed by Robert Pearson,\u201d and that \u201cthere were no insurance premiums computed on any basis for any labor performed in the production of this pulpwood\u201d by Robert Pearson, the decedent.\nThe appellants further argue that the appellees should be estopped because in 1959 they paid compensation benefits to the decedent as the result of an injury. It appears that benefits were paid to an Olen Pearson in 1959 when he was injured as an employee of a Clifford Brewer and the appellee pulpwood company. Appellees denied that, if this was the decedent, he was ever paid any benefits as a pulpwood hauler. Appellants rely upon Stillman v. Jim Walter Corp., 236 Ark. 808, 368 S. W. 2d 270 (1963). We cannot agree. In that case we said estoppel should apply because there was an undisputed contractual agreement that workmen\u2019s compensation would be furnished to the claimant. As we said in Herman Wilson Lbr. Co. v. Hughes, 245 Ark. 168, 431 S. W. 2d 487 (1968), \u201c* * * The question is not whether the testimony would have supported a finding contrary to the one made, but whether it supports the finding which was made.\u201d Since there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the commission, we must affirm its action and the circuit court\u2019s approval.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Frank Holt, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Donald Poe, for appellants.", "Smith, Williams, Friday & Bowen', By: William H. Sutton and Frederick S. Ursery, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Marceline PEARSON, widow of Robert Olen Pearson, deceased et al v. LAKE LAWRENCE PULPWOOD CO. and AMERICAN MUTUAL LIABILITY INS. CO.\n5-5039\n447 S. W. 2d 661\nOpinion delivered December 8, 1969\nDonald Poe, for appellants.\nSmith, Williams, Friday & Bowen', By: William H. Sutton and Frederick S. Ursery, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0776-01", "first_page_order": 798, "last_page_order": 801 }