McCarver v. Second Injury Fund

I thoroughly disagree with the majority opinion in this case as well as in Second Injury Fund v. Riceland Foods (86-50), which is being released today, to the extent it echoes this decision.

First, the majority says Ark. Stat. Ann. § 81-1313(i)(l) (Supp. 1985) contains language persuasive to the effect that the second injury fund should not be liable because it precludes an employer from having to pay for any injury other than one sustained while the worker was in his employment. The simple answer to this point is that if the second injury fund has to pay in his case that statute will not be…