{
  "id": 1453610,
  "name": "JENNY'S CLEANING SERVICE v. Mary REDDICK",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jenny's Cleaning Service v. Reddick",
  "decision_date": "1994-12-19",
  "docket_number": "94-561",
  "first_page": "123",
  "last_page": "125",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "319 Ark. 123"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "889 S.W.2d 754"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "292 Ark. 124",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1871316
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/292/0124-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 Ark. App. 93",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6645255
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/19/0093-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 Ark. App. 54",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6137034
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/26/0054-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-102",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(2)"
        },
        {
          "page": "(2)"
        },
        {
          "page": "(2)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 Ark. App. 5",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6136229
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/46/0005-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 270,
    "char_count": 4278,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.855,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.05456128909446072
    },
    "sha256": "470998a2bcaf2d78690bbf038371ec14cc3ffe0bc6c22fea83519b4725c152da",
    "simhash": "1:3b7cd273c4ed5fae",
    "word_count": 689
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:29:57.133828+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JENNY\u2019S CLEANING SERVICE v. Mary REDDICK"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Tom Glaze, Justice.\nIn this appeal of a workers\u2019 compensation case the court of appeals affirmed the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission on appeal and reversed on cross-appeal and we granted a petition for review of that decision. A detailed recitation of the facts of this case is set out in Jenny\u2019s Cleaning Serv. v. Reddick, 46 Ark. App. 5, 875 S.W.2d 856 (1994).\nThe pertinent evidence reveals that Mary Reddick, a sole proprietor, filed an application for workers\u2019 compensation insurance. Her desire was to obtain coverage for herself as an employee of her business, Jenny\u2019s Cleaning Service. Mrs. Reddick was told by both Patsy Doss, the previous owner, and Pamela Fuller, the insurance agent from whom she purchased the insurance, that to obtain coverage as an employee, Mrs. Reddick could file an application with the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission naming her daughter, thirteen year old Jenny Sigmon, as the \u201csole proprietor.\u201d Mrs. Reddick filed an application in the suggested manner without in any way notifying the Commission that she wanted to be considered an employee for insurance purposes, and indicated that coverage for the \u201csole proprietor\u201d was not desired.\nThe Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission found that Mrs. Reddick had substantially complied with Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-102(2) (1987) and was a covered employee. In a 4-2 decision, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. We disagree and consequently reverse.\nArk. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-102(2) (1987) provides in part:\n\u201c[T]he term \u2018employee\u2019 shall also include a sole proprietor or a partner who devoted full time to the proprietorship or partnership and who elects to be included in the definition of \u2018employee\u2019 by filing written notice with the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission.\u201d [Emphasis added.]\nThe appropriate form to be filed with the Commission, in compliance with the notice requirement in Ark. Code Ann. \u00a711-9-102(2), is a Form A-18. Mrs. Reddick, the true sole proprietor, never listed herself as such on her workers\u2019 compensation insurance application. Moreover, she not only failed to file a Form A-18, but failed to file any kind of written notice, or give any notice otherwise, to indicate her election to be included in the definition of \u201cemployee\u201d as clearly required under \u00a7 11-9-102(2). This court cannot affirm that Mrs. Reddick substantially complied with the statutory requirements when, in fact, her actions do not comply in the least.\nOn two occasions, the court of appeals has held that after 1979 sole proprietors could be considered employees, but only if they elected to be included in the definition of employees and filed their election with the Commission. Stone v. Patel, 26 Ark. App. 54, 759 S.W.2d 579 (1988); Gilbert v. Gilbert Timber Co., 19 Ark. App. 93, 717 S.W.2d 220 (1986), aff\u2019d on separate grounds, 292 Ark. 124, 728 S.W.2d 507 (1987). The court of appeals\u2019 decisions were correct.\nHaving failed to comply with the statutory requirement of filing with the Commission written notice of election to be treated as an \u201cemployee\u201d for workers\u2019 compensation insurance purposes, Mrs. Reddick is not covered, and we must reverse the Commission.\nPamela Fuller thoroughly contested Mrs. Reddick\u2019s version of the facts, but we accept the Commission\u2019s findings for purposes of this review.\nThe court of appeals majority opinion incorrectly determined that the application for insurance Mrs. Reddick completed named \u201cLois Reddick\u201d as an employee.\nArk. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-102 (Supp. 1993) differs from \u00a7 11-9-102 (1987) and reads as follows:\n[T]he term \u201cemployee\u201d shall also include a sole proprietor or a partner who devotes full time to the proprietorship or partnership. Further, however, it is to be understood that any sole proprietor or partner of a partnership who desires not to be included in the definition of employee may file for and receive a certification of noncoverage under this chapter from the commission and thereafter, or until he elects otherwise, to be conclusively presumed not to be an employee for purposes of this chapter.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Tom Glaze, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bassett Law Firm, by: Curtis L. Nebben, for appellant.",
      "Tolley & Brooks, P.A., by: Jay N. Tolley, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JENNY\u2019S CLEANING SERVICE v. Mary REDDICK\n94-561\n889 S.W.2d 754\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered December 19, 1994\nBassett Law Firm, by: Curtis L. Nebben, for appellant.\nTolley & Brooks, P.A., by: Jay N. Tolley, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0123-01",
  "first_page_order": 157,
  "last_page_order": 159
}