{
  "id": 1756174,
  "name": "FAIRVIEW KENNELS v. Cathy BAILEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fairview Kennels v. Bailey",
  "decision_date": "1981-01-21",
  "docket_number": "CA 80-392",
  "first_page": "712",
  "last_page": "715",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "271 Ark. 712"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "610 S.W.2d 270"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "251 Ark. 1029",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1633368
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1922,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/251/1029-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "205 Ark. 752",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1488247
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/205/0752-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 Ark. 438",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1475761
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/209/0438-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 Ark. 575",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1675925
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/262/0575-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 331,
    "char_count": 4734,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.701,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.9371552321212053e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7350484526317944
    },
    "sha256": "4fb3d96549f886f5b6105f2d7cc4a92984b0b3379c8f9451ed2f1fc51fedd9ac",
    "simhash": "1:641985b67d0ef39d",
    "word_count": 808
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:22:30.070289+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "FAIRVIEW KENNELS v. Cathy BAILEY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Melvin Mayfield, Chief Judge.\nThis is an appeal from an award of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission holding that appellant had the requisite number of employees to be subject to the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act and that the appellee received an injury arising out of her employment.\nIt is appellant\u2019s first contention that she did not have three or more regular employees and thus was not subject to the act.\nAppellant is the sole owner and operator of Fairview Kennels. She admits that appellee Cathy Bailey was a regular employee. She also admits that Lane Miller was a regular employee. The administrative law judge found, and the full commission agreed, that the appellant, her son, and Mrs. Debbie Fout were also regular employees. If appellant had three regular employees, she was subject to the act.\nAs to Mrs. Fout, it is appellant\u2019s contention that she was an independent contractor and not an employee. The commission found that she was an employee. This was a question of fact which we must affirm if there is any substantial evidence to support the finding. Purdy\u2019s Flower Shop v. Livingston, 262 Ark. 575, 559 S.W. 2d 24 (1977).\nThere was evidence that appellant would make appointments for dogs to be groomed and Mrs. Fout would come in and do the work. At the end of the week the appellant would give Mrs. Fout fifty percent of what had been collected for the grooming. Their arrangement was not written and the appellant testified she had the authority to fire and hire anyone who worked there. She said Mrs. Fout was a professional groomer and did not need to be told how to do it but at times appellant would tell her \u201cI don\u2019t think you ought to shave this dog. You ought to brush it.\u201d\nIn Purdy\u2019s Flower Shop v. Livingston, supra, the Supreme Court pointed out that whether one is an employee or an independent contractor is a question of fact and at page 580 said:\nThe primary test is whether the will of the worker or that of the employer dominates the means and method of the work, except as to result. Parker Stave Co. v. Hines, 209 Ark. 438, 190 S.W. 2d 620. We there pointed our that there are numerous indicia of the relationship utilized as guides to the primary question of control, none of which is conclusive or controlling. Among those we have recognized are: the time for which the workman is employed; the right to terminate the employment without liability; the method of payment, whether by time, job, piece or other unit of measurement; furnishing, or the obligation to furnish, necessary tools and equipment and materials; and the exercise of some slight control of the manner of doing the work, where the nature of the work is such that little supervision is necessary. Parker Stave Co. v. Hines, supra; Irvan v. Bounds, 205 Ark. 752, 170 S.W. 2d 674.\nWe hold that there was substantial evidence from which the commission could have found either way so we affirm the commission\u2019s finding that Mrs. Fout was a regular employee. Since this makes three such employees, it is not necessary to discuss the commission\u2019s finding with regard to the appellant and her son.\nThe appellant\u2019s second contention is that the evidence does not support the finding that the appellee received an injury arising out of her employment. Appellant contends that there was an \u201cunexplained fall\u201d and that there is no evidence to show it was causally connected to appellee\u2019s work.\nBoth parties agree that there is no appellate decision in Arkansas dealing with an \u201cunexplained fall\u201d situation. However, we note that \u00a7 10.31 of Larson, Workmen\u2019s Compensation Law (1978) says, \u201cIt is significant t\u00f3 note that most courts confronted with the unexplained fall problem had seen fit to award compensation.\u201d\nThe appellee \u201cexplained\u201d her fall this way: \u201cI was cleaning the kennels in back and disinfecting them, and I was going to the front to refill the disinfectant bottle, and I fell and couldn\u2019t get up.\u201d We hold this sufficient explanation for the commission to find that the appellee fell while doing the work her job required and that she thereby received an injury arising out of her employment. This is a question of fact and it has been determined by the commission and unless we find that \u201cfair-minded men could not reach the conclusion arrived at by the commission\u201d we must affirm. Plastics Research & Development Co. v. Goodpaster, 251 Ark. 1029, 476 S.W. 2d 242 (1922).\nWe hold that the award of the commission is supported by substantial evidence.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Melvin Mayfield, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wallace, Hilburn, Clayton & Calhoon, Ltd., by: John F. Forster, Jr. and David Fuqua, for appellant.",
      "Satterfield & Moody, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FAIRVIEW KENNELS v. Cathy BAILEY\nCA 80-392\n610 S.W. 2d 270\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered January 21, 1981\nWallace, Hilburn, Clayton & Calhoon, Ltd., by: John F. Forster, Jr. and David Fuqua, for appellant.\nSatterfield & Moody, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0712-01",
  "first_page_order": 758,
  "last_page_order": 761
}