APPEAL
FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION [NO.
G603170]
Goldberg & Dohan, by: Andy L. Caldwell, for appellant.
Worley, Wood & Parrish, P.A., by: Melissa Wood, for
appellee.
JOHN
DAN KEMP, CHIEF JUSTICE
Appellant
Walter Farris appeals an Arkansas Workers' Compensation
Commission's decision adopting the finding of the
administrative law judge (ALJ) that his additional-benefits
claim was barred by the statute of limitations. For reversal,
Farris argues that the Commission's decision was not
supported by substantial evidence. We affirm the
Commission's finding and vacate the opinion of the court
of appeals.
I.
Facts
On May
12, 2014, Farris was injured on the job when a crane fell on
him. He sustained injuries to his head, neck, and left
shoulder. Appellee Express Services, Inc., a temporary
employment agency that employed Farris, paid benefits for his
injury claim.[1] Farris received medical treatment from Dr.
Ron Schechter until he was released to full duty on April 28,
2015. Express Services paid the fee associated with the April
28 visit.
On May
5, 2016, approximately two years after he was injured, Farris
submitted a Form AR-C for additional benefits. On the form,
he incorrectly named Great Dane Trailers as his employer.
Express Services had assigned Farris to a Great Dane
location, but he worked for the temporary agency. Farris
later realized his mistake, and on May 13, he filed an
amended Form AR-C, dated May 12, and correctly named Express
Services as his employer.
The ALJ
conducted a hearing on Farris's entitlement to additional
workers'-compensation benefits and found that his claim
was barred by the statute of limitations. The Commission
affirmed and adopted the ALJ's findings. Farris appealed
to the Arkansas Court of Appeals. Relying on Dillard v.
Benton County Sheriff's Office, 87 Ark.App. 379, 192
S.W.3d 287 (2004), the court of appeals held that
Farris's mistake on his claim form for additional
benefits was "a mistake as to form and not as to
substance." Farris v. Express Servs., Inc.,
2018 Ark.App. 189, at 4, 546 S.W.3d 530, 532. The court of
appeals concluded that the statute of limitations had tolled
and reversed and remanded to the Commission. Id.,
546 S.W.3d at 532. Express Services petitioned this court for
review, and we granted the petition. When we grant a petition
for review, we consider the appeal as though it had
originally been filed in this court. Lawson v. Simmons
Sporting Goods, Inc., 2019 Ark. 84___, S.W.3d___ .
II.
Law and Analysis
For
his sole point on appeal, Farris argues that substantial
evidence does not support the Commission's decision.
Specifically, Farris contends that he timely filed his first
additional-benefits form on May 5, 2016, and that his mistake
of naming the wrong employer should not bar his claim.
When
reviewing a decision of the Commission, we view the evidence
and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the
light most favorable to the findings of the Commission and
affirm that decision if it is supported by substantial
evidence. Crudup v. Regal Ware, Inc., 341 Ark. 804,
20 S.W.3d 900 (2000). Substantial evidence exists if
fair-minded persons could reach the same conclusion when
considering the same facts. Id., 20 S.W.3d 900. The
issue is not whether the appellate court might have reached a
different result from the Commission, but rather whether
reasonable minds could reach the result found by the
Commission. Wallace v. W. Fraser South, Inc., 365
Ark. 68, 225 S.W.3d 361 (2006). If so, the appellate court
must affirm the Commission's decision. Id., 225
S.W.3d 361.
Further,
we review issues of statutory construction de novo because it
is this court's duty to decide what a statute means.
Johnson v. Bonds Fertilizer, Inc., 365 Ark. 133, 226
S.W.3d 753 (2006). The first rule in considering the meaning
and effect of a statute is to construe it just as it reads,
giving the words their ordinary meaning and usually accepted
meaning in common language. Id., 226 S.W.3d 753. We
construe the statute so that no word is left void,
superfluous, or insignificant; and meaning and effect are
given to every word in the statute if possible. Id.,
226 S.W.3d 753. When the language of the statute is plain and
unambiguous, there is no need to resort to rules of statutory
construction. Id., 226 S.W.3d 753. When the meaning
is not clear, we look to the language of the statute, the
subject matter, the object to be accomplished, the purpose to
be served, the remedy provided, the legislative history, and
other appropriate means that shed light on the subject.
Id., 226 S.W.3d 753.
Arkansas
Code Annotated section 11-9-702 (Repl. 2012) governs the
statute of limitations for additional ...