Cromwell v. University of Arkansas
2001 Ark. App. LEXIS 831, 61 S.W.3d 864, 76 Ark. App. 5 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the 1993 amendments to the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Act, the two-year statute of limitations for filing a claim begins to run on the date of the compensable injury, which is defined as the specific, identifiable incident that causes the harm. The latent nature of an injury or a delay in the manifestation of full disability does not toll or extend this limitations period.
Facts:
- The appellant was employed as a fundraiser, which required extensive overseas travel.
- For a work trip, he was prescribed and took the anti-malarial drug Lariam over a fourteen-week period, from June 1994 to August 1994.
- Soon after beginning the Lariam treatment, the appellant experienced severe physical and psychological symptoms, including a seizure, tunnel vision, disorientation, and depression.
- By October 1994, the appellant's symptoms, including extreme depression, had become severe.
- In April 1996, a physician, Dr. Pang, informed the appellant that his symptoms could be caused by the Lariam medication.
- The appellant continued to work until May 1999, when he became unable to do so due to his condition.
Procedural Posture:
- In August 1999, the appellant filed a claim for disability benefits with the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission.
- The appellee (employer) contested the claim, arguing it was filed after the two-year statute of limitations had expired.
- After a hearing, the Commission found the date of injury was between June and October 1994 and denied the claim as time-barred.
- The appellant appealed the Commission's decision to the Arkansas Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the two-year statute of limitations for a workers' compensation claim begin to run from the date of the identifiable incident causing the injury, even if the employee does not become fully disabled and unable to work until years later?
Opinions:
Majority - John Mauzy Pittman
Yes. The two-year statute of limitations for a workers' compensation claim begins to run from the date of the specific, identifiable incident causing the harm, not the date the resulting disability fully manifests. The court's reasoning is based on Act 796 of 1993, which amended Arkansas's workers' compensation laws. This Act defines a 'compensable injury' as one caused by a specific incident identifiable by time and place. Critically, the Act added a provision stating that a 'latent injury or condition shall not delay or toll the limitations period.' In this case, the appellant’s injury was caused by the Lariam treatments beginning in June 1994, and he experienced immediate, severe symptoms. Because the identifiable incident and initial harm occurred in 1994, the two-year period began then, making his August 1999 claim untimely.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the strict application of the 1993 legislative amendments to the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Act, effectively eliminating the prior judicial 'discovery rule' for latent injuries. The court established a bright-line rule that the statute of limitations is triggered by the causal event itself, regardless of when the full consequences, such as the inability to work, become apparent. This interpretation significantly narrows the window for filing claims for injuries with long latency periods or those that progressively worsen over time, placing a greater burden on employees to identify and file claims promptly after any work-related incident causing harm.
Unlock the full brief for Cromwell v. University of Arkansas