Legal Opinion · Dissent

Curtis v. Lemna

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Decided November 6, 2013No. CV-12-219Published

1DissentKenneth S. Hixson, Judge

I respectfully dissent because there is no substantial evidence to support a finding that Curtis and Lemna were providing employment services when Curtis was injured in the golf cart. Injuries that occur during recreational or social activities for the employee’s personal pleasure are not compen-sable. Ark.Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(B)(ii). And, injuries that occur when an employee is not providing employment services are not compensable. Ark.Code Ann. § 11 — 9—102(4)(B )(iii). Whether one is providing employment services must be determined within the context of individual cases, employments,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. King v. CardinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1959
  2. Miller v. EndersSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2013
  3. Engle v. Thompson Murray, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2006

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API