FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION [NO.
& Dohan, by: Andy L. Caldwell, for appellant.
Wood & Parrish, P.A., by: Melissa Wood, for appellee.
DAN KEMP, Chief Justice
Appellant Walter Farris appeals an Arkansas Workers
Compensation Commissions 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
Commissions decision was not supported by substantial
evidence. We affirm the Commissions finding and vacate the
opinion of the court of appeals.
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. Farris received medical treatment from
Dr. Ron Sketchers until he was released to full duty on April
28, 2015. Express Services paid the fee associated with the
April 28 visit.
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.
conducted a hearing on Farriss entitlement to additional
workers-compensation benefits and found that his claim was
barred by the statute of limitations. The Commission affirmed
and adopted the ALJs findings. Farris appealed to the
Arkansas Court of Appeals. Relying on Dillard v. Benton
County Sheriffs Office, 87 Ark.App. 379, 192 S.W.3d 287
(2004), the court of appeals held that Farriss 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, 569 S.W.3d 865.
Law and Analysis
his sole point on appeal, Farris argues that substantial
evidence does not support the Commissions 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.
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