{ "id": 1655483, "name": "Billy Leon GRAHAM v. TURNAGE EMPLOYMENT GROUP and Wausau Insurance Companies", "name_abbreviation": "Graham v. Turnage Employment Group", "decision_date": "1998-07-02", "docket_number": "98-147", "first_page": "32", "last_page": "34", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "334 Ark. 32" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "970 S.W.2d 808" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "54 Ark. App. 53", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6136772 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/54/0053-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 Ark. App. 105", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6139007 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/55/0105-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-102", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(5)(B)(iv)" }, { "page": "(5)(B)(iv)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "960 S.W.2d 453", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 6138433, 377681 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/60/0150-01", "/ark/332/0370-01" ] }, { "cite": "60 Ark. App. 150", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6138433 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/60/0150-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 319, "char_count": 4825, "ocr_confidence": 0.726, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.22383782585142e-08, "percentile": 0.38500043824948865 }, "sha256": "e9010f717dce9cfb14bf479092f57a6d9af5ffc3a3bc3dd68a74e8a101a643d0", "simhash": "1:69898ab50f86f5ec", "word_count": 745 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:44:18.632081+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Corbin, J., not participating." ], "parties": [ "Billy Leon GRAHAM v. TURNAGE EMPLOYMENT GROUP and Wausau Insurance Companies" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice.\nThe appellant, Billy Leon Graham, appeals from the decision of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission denying him benefits for injuries he sustained in a work-related accident. We initially granted Graham\u2019s petition for review of the Court of Appeals\u2019 decision affirming the Commission. Upon further examination, we have determined that review was improvidently granted. Accordingly, the petition is denied, and the Court of Appeals\u2019 decision in Graham v. Turnage Employment Group, 60 Ark. App. 150, 960 S.W.2d 453 (1998), remains the binding ruling in this case.\nOn June 13, 1995, Billy Graham fell from a roof while he was working as a construction laborer for Turnage Employment Group. While being treated for his injuries at a nearby hospital, Graham submitted to a urine drug screen. An analysis performed the next day revealed that Graham\u2019s urine contained marijuana metabolites. Graham subsequently filed a claim for workers\u2019 compensation benefits. Turnage and its workers\u2019 compensation carrier, Wausau Insurance, contended that Graham\u2019s injuries were not compensable because they were \u201csubstantially occasioned by the use of. . . illegal drugs\u201d pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11\u20149\u2014102(5)(B)(iv) (Supp. 1997).\nDuring a hearing before the administrative law judge (ALJ), Graham testified that he did not smoke marijuana or use any type of illegal drugs on the day of the accident, but he admitted that he had taken \u201ca couple of puffs\u201d of marijuana approximately three weeks prior to the accident. Graham, however, made several contradictory statements about his prior drug use in his deposition and to a representative from Wausau Insurance. Dr. Henry F. Simmons, Jr., a toxicologist and medical doctor retained by Graham, explained that the presence of metabolites in a person\u2019s urine is both consistent and inconsistent with being under the influence of marijuana, and thus, the lab report did not prove that Graham used marijuana on the day of the accident. Dr. Simmons then testified that \u201cunder some circumstances, a urine specimen could [test] positive for weeks, if not in excess of a month\u201d after the use of marijuana. Finally, Dr. Simmons explained that the effects of marijuana could last four to six hours.\nThe ALJ awarded Graham benefits because he had presented sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption that his injuries were substantially occasioned by the use of illegal drugs. After conducting a de novo review of the record, the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission concluded that Graham failed to rebut the statutory presumption because his testimony was \u201creplete with contradictions and inconsistencies,\u201d and \u201c[h]e is not able to tell the same story twice.\u201d Accordingly, the Commission reversed the ALJ\u2019s ruling and denied Graham\u2019s request for benefits. In a split decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission\u2019s decision. Graham v. Turnage Employment Group, 60 Ark. App. 150, 960 S.W.2d 453 (1998).\nWe initially granted Graham\u2019s petition for review because we thought this case presented an opportunity to address when the statutory presumption created by Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-102(5)(B)(iv) may be invoked. As acknowledged by Judge Roaf, Graham\u2019s arguments on appeal, however, \u201cmiss the mark.\u201d Graham, supra (Roaf, J., concurring). Instead of questioning whether a urine analysis, which can only detect the presence of non-psychoactive metabolites of marijuana, is sufficient to invoke the statutory presumption, Graham made the evidentiary arguments that the lab result was hearsay, and that the proper chain of custody had not been established. Graham also argued that the urine analysis could not detect \u201cimpairment.\u201d This argument is also misplaced because the statute only requires the \u201cthe use\u201d of illegal drugs and not impairment. Finally, Graham argued in passing that the statutory presumption was unconstitutional. We, however, cannot address this constitutional challenge because Graham failed to raise it before the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission. Jefferson v. Munsey Products, Inc., 55 Ark. App. 105, 930 S.W.2d 396 (1996); Green v. Smith & Scott Logging, 54 Ark. App. 53, 922 S.W.2d 746 (1996).\nFor these reasons, we conclude that the petition for review was improvidently granted. Accordingly, we deny Graham\u2019s petition for review, and the Court of Appeals\u2019 decision in Graham v. Turnage Employment Group, 60 Ark. App. 150, 960 S.W.2d 453 (1998), remains the binding decision in this matter.\nPetition for review denied.\nCorbin, J., not participating.", "type": "majority", "author": "Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "The Cortinez Law Firm, P.L.L.C., by: Robert Cortinez, for appellant.", "Anderson & Kilpatrick, by: Randy Murphy, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Billy Leon GRAHAM v. TURNAGE EMPLOYMENT GROUP and Wausau Insurance Companies\n98-147\n970 S.W.2d 808\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered July 2, 1998\nThe Cortinez Law Firm, P.L.L.C., by: Robert Cortinez, for appellant.\nAnderson & Kilpatrick, by: Randy Murphy, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0032-01", "first_page_order": 58, "last_page_order": 60 }