{
  "id": 1715558,
  "name": "Robert Wayne GRAY v. ARMOUR AND COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gray v. Armour & Co.",
  "decision_date": "1980-04-16",
  "docket_number": "CA 79-281",
  "first_page": "1072",
  "last_page": "1076",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "268 Ark. 1072"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "598 S.W.2d 434"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "268 Ark. 770",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1715501
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/268/0770-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 354,
    "char_count": 6462,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.886,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4705019481830794
    },
    "sha256": "993e922647f874bc2868968caa5421608f884849881e970fd3cfeff196f9c84c",
    "simhash": "1:212ee258575d56a8",
    "word_count": 995
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:03:10.426772+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Howard, J., concurs."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Robert Wayne GRAY v. ARMOUR AND COMPANY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Marian F. Penix, Judge.\nThis is a Workers\u2019 Compensation case which concerns the interpretation of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1310(f).\nOn August 5, 1976 the claimant suffered a compensable injury in the course of his employment with Armour and Company. The Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission held the claimant was temporarily and totally disabled from August 6, 1976 through July 2, 1977, on which date the healing period ended. It also found the claimant to have sustained permanent partial disability to the body as a whole in an amount equal to at least 20%. The Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission approved the joint plan for rehabilitation and held that the final determination of the total amount should not be made until after completion, or termination, of the program of vocational rehabilitation. The Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission directed Respondent to pay for costs of rehabilitation together with any additional travel and maintenance expenses incidental to and incurred in conjunction with or because of claimant\u2019s participation in the program of rehabilitation. The Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission directed the Respondent to pay special temporary total disability benefits to the Claimant at the rate of $77.00 per week while he is enrolled in and successfully pursuing the approved program of rehabilitation. The Claimant appealed from the Commission\u2019s opinion to the Circuit Court which affirmed the Commission. The Claimant appeals.\nIt is the contention of the claimant the Commission and the Circuit Court erred in construing and interpreting Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1310(f) which reads as follows:\nRehabilitation. An employee who is entitled to receive compensation benefits for permanent disability shall be paid in addition to benefits otherwise provided for by this Act, reasonable expense of travel and maintenance and other necessary costs of a program of vocational rehabilitation for a period not to exceed sixty (60) weeks if the Commission finds that such program is reasonable in relation to the disabilities sustained by such employee. A request for such program must be filed with the Commission prior to a determination of the amount of permanent disability benefits payable to such employee.\nThe claimant reasons \u201cmaintenance\u201d as used in \u00a7 81-1310(f) includes the upkeep of the claimant\u2019s home during the period of rehabilitation and an amount necessary to provide for all the claimant\u2019s household and living expenses, as well as those of his family. He contends that no permanent partial disability benefits should be paid while he is engaged in a program of vocational rehabilitation and that during that period of time the maintenance benefits awarded should pay, not just the additional cost, if any, to maintain him in his participation in a program of vocational rehabilitation, but also pay all other household and living expenses of both claimant and his family during the rehabilitation program.\nNeither the Arkansas Supreme Court, nor this Court, nor the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission has defined the term \u201cmaintenance\u201d nor defined what should be included in \u201cother necessary costs\u201d.\nThe Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission award directs the Respondent to \u201cpay for the cost of the program of rehabilitation as jointly submitted by the parties and hereinabove approved by the Commission, together with any additional travel and maintenance expenses (as defined herein) incidental to and incurred in conjunction with or because of claimant\u2019s participating in the program of rehabilitation.\u201d\nThe Commission opinion defines maintenance as follows:\nReasonable maintenance means all (reasonable) additional living expenses incurred by the claimant as a result of pursuing his program of rehabilitation. (E.G., the additional cost of room and board if it is necessary for the claimant to reside away from home during his program of vocational rehabilitation. Also, the entire cost of any and all other additional maintenance expenses that he incurs as a result of his program such as special or additional clothing, etc.)\nIn 2 Larson\u2019s Workmen\u2019s Compensation Law, \u00a7 61-20 Professor Larson in emphasizing the extreme importance of rehabilitation lists twenty-six states which include a maintenance allowance in their rehabilitation statute. He believes the maintenance feature to be one of the most important aspects of a successful rehabilitation statute. He lauds the statute of Wisconsin as one of the most fully developed. Wisc. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 102.61 provides:\nAn employee who is entitled to receive and has received compensation pursuant to this chapter . . . shall, in addition to his other indemnity, be paid his actual and necessary expenses of travel and, if he receives such instructions elsewhere than at the place of his residence, his actual and necessary costs of maintenance, during rehabilitation, . . .\nWhile the language of the Arkansas statute is different from that above, we believe the legislature intended the same interpretation. The design and intent of the statute are not to fully maintain claimant\u2019s household during his participation in a rehabilitation program.\nWe need not discuss the propriety of the award of \u201cspecial temporary total disability benefits\u201d. No cross-appeal was filed in this case. The respondent has not challenged the reasonableness of the $77 per week award. Therefore, it must stand. The reasonableness of the Commission\u2019s finding dealing with maintenance and its application to this claimant\u2019s case has not been challenged by the respondent.\nWe affirm the Commission\u2019s finding regarding its interpretation of maintenance.\nAffirmed.\nHoward, J., concurs.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Marian F. Penix, Judge."
      },
      {
        "text": "George Howard, Jr., Judge,\nconcurring. The Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission is endowed with the responsibility to administer and implement the State\u2019s policy in industrial injuries and possesses the expertise to determine what is reasonable and proper in a retraining program. Unless the action of the Commission is arbitrary and not supported by substantial evidence, an appellate court has the duty to affirm the action of the fact finding agency.\nSee: Dissenting opinion in Model Laundry & Dry Cleaning, et al v. Gary D. Simmons, 268 Ark. 770, 596 S.W. 2d 337 (Ark. App. 1980).",
        "type": "concurrence",
        "author": "George Howard, Jr., Judge,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rose, Kinsey & Cromwell, for appellant.",
      "Pryor, Robinson, Taylor & Barry, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Robert Wayne GRAY v. ARMOUR AND COMPANY\nCA 79-281\n598 S.W. 2d 434\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered April 16, 1980\nReleased for publication May 14, 1980\nRose, Kinsey & Cromwell, for appellant.\nPryor, Robinson, Taylor & Barry, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "1072-01",
  "first_page_order": 1108,
  "last_page_order": 1112
}