## Facts

- Wayne Kirby served as chairman of the Board of Trustees of a fraternal lodge and was responsible for attending meetings, overseeing lodge business, and caring for the lodge building.
- Kirby received nominal compensation of $1 per year for his service.
- On March 19, 1980, Kirby went onto the lodge roof to inspect it for leaks as part of caring for the building.
- While inspecting the roof, Kirby suffered a high-voltage electrical shock.
- An administrative law judge found the injury compensable, concluding the roof inspection was expected, routine, important to lodge operations, and arose out of and in the course of employment.
- The Workers’ Compensation Commission adopted and affirmed the administrative law judge’s decision.
- The lodge and its compensation carrier appealed, disputing (1) Kirby’s status as an employee and (2) causal connection between the shock and Kirby’s disability.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the Commission’s finding that Kirby was an “employee” under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act when injured, despite his officer title and nominal pay.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the Commission’s finding that Kirby’s disability was causally connected to the electrical shock sustained during the roof inspection.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s award.
- The court held substantial evidence supported treating Kirby as an employee at the time of injury because the relevant inquiry focused on the work he was performing when injured, and building maintenance fell within his assigned duties.
- The court held substantial evidence supported causation between the electrical shock incident and the claimed disability.
- Applying the substantial-evidence standard, the court declined to reweigh proof and would reverse only if fair-minded persons could not reach the Commission’s conclusion.

## Legal Principles

- A workers’ compensation claimant must prove compensability by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The Workers’ Compensation Act is remedial and is liberally construed in favor of the claimant; doubtful cases are resolved in favor of compensation.
- Liberal construction applies to the fact determination of whether the injured person is an employee.
- On appellate review, evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the Commission, and findings are affirmed if supported by substantial evidence; reversal requires concluding fair-minded persons could not agree with the Commission.
- When an individual occupies more than one role (such as officer and worker), employee status may depend on the type of work actually being performed at the time of injury; officer status does not categorically bar coverage.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the workers’ compensation award, holding that substantial evidence supported the Commission’s findings that a lodge trustee-chairman performing routine building-related duties was an employee for purposes of coverage and that the electrical shock sustained during the roof inspection caused the compensable injury.


Fraternal Ord. of Eagles v. Kirby, 639 S.W.2d 529 (Ark. Ct. App. 1982)