State News : Arkansas

    On December 3, 2025, an Arkansas Court of Appeals issued an opinion that further bolstered the supreme reign of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (more commonly referred to as the “Full Commission”) as the deferential trier of fact and arbiter of credibility. One of the most noteworthy quirks of Arkansas workers’ compensation law is that Arkansas appellate courts and the Arkansas Supreme Court afford near-complete deference to the Full Commission’s credibility assessment of witnesses while completely disregarding the credibility determinations rendered by Administrative Law Judges that have had the opportunity to personally observe witnesses and their demeanor while testifying on the stand. The Full Commission is tasked with reviewing the decisions rendered by ALJs along with the evidentiary record of a claim once an ALJ’s decision has been appealed, but their review of the record is limited to transcripts of testimony, evidentiary exhibits, and briefs submitted by legal counsel for both parties. However, despite never getting to personally observe witnesses and their demeanor as they testify, it is well settled in Arkansas workers’ compensation law that the reviewing Court of Appeals or Arkansas Supreme Court will “give no weight to the ALJ’s findings whatsoever” and will instead defer to the credibility assessments and findings of facts rendered by the Full Commission even though it is the ALJ that presides over a claim for months (potentially even years), makes rulings on the admissibility of evidence, and personally observes claimants and other witnesses as they testify under direct and cross-examination. Dardanelle Pub. Sch. v. Ewton, 2025 Ark. App. 575, at 7, 728 S.W.3d 401, 405 (citing Clark v. Peabody Testing Serv., 265 Ark. 489, 579 S.W.2d 360 (1979)). 

    In the case in point, Claimant Andrea Ewton was employed as a substitute custodian for Dardanelle Intermediate School and was on the clock when she walked from the school’s office to her car and injured her knee and ankle when she stepped down from a curb in the parking lot. At issue was whether she was performing employment services when she went to her car or whether she had gone to her car for a personal errand (specifically to retrieve her water bottle). Mere hours after Ewton’s fall, she spoke on the phone with a claim supervisor and reported that she had gone to her car that morning to retrieve a water bottle when she slipped off a curb injuring her knee and ankle. In the recorded transcript of that call, Ewton was specifically asked if she had gone to her car for any purpose other than retrieving her water bottle, and she responded, “No ma’am”. The school nurse that iced Claimant’s injuries immediately after the accident also testified that Ewton told her she had been walking to her car to get a drink when she slipped off the curb. These reports made by Claimant immediately after her accident are noteworthy because she eventually changed her story and testified at the hearing in front of the ALJ that she had gone to her car to retrieve a set of keys that she needed to open school buildings. Ewton had also testified during her deposition that she went to her car to retrieve a set of keys; however, during her deposition, she testified that the school nurse had given her the wrong set of keys earlier that morning. In contrast, she testified in front of the ALJ that the school’s secretary had given her the wrong set of keys that morning (perhaps after she and her attorney realized that the school nurse only had keys that could open the nurse’s office rather than the various school buildings that Ewton needed to access that day). 

    After observing the demeanor of Ewton, the school nurse and the secretary while they testified, in addition to reviewing the Claimant’s deposition transcript and the transcript of her recorded statement made on the same day of her accident, the ALJ ruled that Ewton had failed to prove she suffered a compensable injury to her knee and ankle because she was not performing employment services at the time of her fall. In his opinion, the ALJ specifically found that Ewton did not provide credible testimony when she testified that she had gone to her car that morning to retrieve a set of keys to one of the school’s buildings. His credibility determination was based on Ewton’s inconsistent narratives regarding why she went to her car that morning as well as other instances of doubtful credibility in the record such as her testimony at the hearing that she hadn’t worked since her accident which was contradicted by Claimant’s unemployment application wherein she reported working for a nursing and rehabilitation facility for a period of four months after her accident at the school. 

    In spite of the ALJ’s personal observations of the witnesses throughout their testimony as well as his thorough opinion which cited to numerous inconsistencies in the evidentiary record in support of his credibility assessments, the Full Commission reversed his denial of the claim and found that Ewton had met her burden of proof in establishing that she was performing employment services at the time of her fall. The Full Commission noted in its decision that it specifically found Ewton’s testimony to be credible when she testified at the hearing that she had gone to her car to retrieve a set of keys rather than only going to her car for a bottle of water. Respondents appealed the Full Commission’s decision to the Court of Appeals arguing that Claimant had failed to prove she sustained a compensable injury within the scope of her employment because she provided inconsistent statements regarding her purpose for going to her car. However, the Court of Appeals abided by long-standing precedent in deferring to the Full Commission’s credibility determination and stating that Arkansas courts will affirm the Commission’s decisions when the issue on appeal comes down to the Commission’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses.  

    Given that the Court of Appeals is bound by the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act and decades of case law which designate the Commission as the ultimate factfinder, the Court of Appeals’ decision to affirm the Full Commission is certainly not surprising to those who are familiar with workers’ compensation law in the natural state. Ultimately, it is up to the Arkansas legislature to amend the law if they believe that the ALJs who have the opportunity to personally observe the demeanor of witnesses and to comb through extensive evidence should be given deference when making credibility determinations and other valuable findings of fact over the administrative and judicial bodies who are charged with reviewing the evidentiary record from transcripts and records alone.