218 [360 AUTOMATED CONVEYOR SYSTEMS Calvin DOOLEY 04-1256 200 S W3d 442 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered December 16, 2004 PROHIBITION, WRIT OF - TREATED AS CASE - BRIEFING SCHEDULE ORDERED - The supreme court detenmned that the petition for a writ of prohibition, which alleged that the circuit court was without jurisdiction to hear the case because the exclusive remedy for an injury sustained in the course and scope of employment is provided under the Worker's Compensation Act, would be treated as a case; thus the parties were ordered to brief four specific issues: Writ of Prohibition, briefing schedule ordered. Roberts Law FMn, P.A., by:John D. Webster, for petitioner. Fogleman & Rogers, by Joe M Rogers, for respondent: ER CURIAM. Automated Conveyer Systems (Automated) p petitions this court for a writ ofprohibition alleging that the Crittenden County Circuit Court is without junsdicnon to hear this case because the exclusive remedy for an injury sustained in the course and scope of employment is provided under the Worker's Compensation Act On January 21, 2004, Calvin Dooley filed a complaint based in negligence in the circuit court alleging that he suffered a gradual onset neck injury in the course and scope of employment: Dooley's employer Automated brought a motion to dismiss alleging that pursuant to Ark: Code Ann. 5 11-9-105(a)(Repl 2002), Dooley had sought damages under the Worker's Compensation Act and was limited to that remedy. The circuit court denied the motion to disn-Uss, and Automated now seeks a writ of prohibition [1] This petition for a writ of prohibition will be treated as a case: We order the parties to brief the following issues: 1 Whether the Worker's Compensation Act remains the exclusive remedy for all non-intentional injuries ansing out of the course and scope of employment; 2 Whether amendments to Ark: Code Ann, 1 l-9-704(c)(3) (Repl 2002), which states that "administrative law judges, the
ARK 219 commission, and any reviewing court shall construe the provisions of this chapter strictly," affect the analysis in this case, 3 Whether the definition of "accidentat" in Ark Code Aim 5 11-9-102(4)(A)(Repl: 2002) excludes the injury in the present ca3e from the Worker's Compensation Act, and 4 Whether the injury in the present case is one that ma y be brought in neghgence against Automated: The appropriate briefing schedule will be established by the clerk of the court
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.