Kenneth Williams v. Malvern School District and Arkansas School Boards Association

Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 208
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CV-24-290

Opinion Delivered April 9, 2025

KENNETH WILLIAMS APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
APPELLANT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSION
V. [NO. H207041]

MALVERN SCHOOL DISTRICT AND
ARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS
ASSOCIATION
APPELLEES AFFIRMED

BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge

Kenneth Williams (deceased) appeals the decision of the Arkansas Workers’

Compensation Commission (the Commission) that reversed the opinion of the

administrative law judge (ALJ) and found that Williams was not performing employment

services at the time of his fatal injury. We affirm the Commission’s decision.

The facts surrounding this tragic accident are not in dispute. On 26 April 2022,

Williams was driving on Interstate 30 from Arkadelphia toward Malvern after attending a

meeting of the Region II Arkansas School Band and Orchestra Association (ASBOA).

Williams came upon an accident and exited his vehicle to assist other motorists. During

that time, a second accident involving several vehicles occurred; one of these vehicles veered

into the center median where it lost its front passenger-side tire. The loose tire struck

Williams, and he was pronounced deceased at the scene.

1
Williams’s employer, the Malvern School District (MSD), denied that Williams had

suffered compensable injuries under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act because he

had not been performing employment services at the time of his accidental death. The issue

came before an ALJ on 31 March 2023, and the following testimony was offered.

Williams’s wife, Cynthia, said she and Williams lived in Malvern and had been

married for thirty-four years. He was the band director at Malvern High School and

routinely traveled for work using his own truck. He also routinely had school property in

his truck, such as music stands, chairs, or instruments. On the afternoon of 26 April 2022,

Cynthia knew Williams had been returning to Malvern from a meeting in Arkadelphia at

the time of the accident, but she did not know his particular destination in Malvern.

Williams’s son, Grant Williams, lives in Arkadelphia and works as a police officer for

Ouachita Baptist University. He confirmed that his father used his personal vehicle to travel

and transport equipment for work. Williams also attended different events around the state

for work, including football games and all region band camp. Grant did not know his dad’s

particular destination when the accident occurred. Grant retrieved his dad’s truck after the

accident and found several items belonging to the school, which he returned.

Jon Stevenson worked with Williams as the assistant band director for the high school

and the band director for the middle school. He and Williams were both members of

ASBOA, and the school paid their membership dues. ASBOA allows band directors and

orchestra directors to collaborate on teaching methods and music programs as well as

organize an annual all-state clinic. A band director must be a member of ASBOA in order

for his or her students to participate in certain programs. Membership also benefits the

2
school district because it gives students opportunities for performing, auditioning,

participating in marching competitions, and other activities. Stevenson attended the 26

April 2022 meeting, which he said was mandatory, and drove his personal vehicle to the

meeting. He did not know if Williams was going to the high school after the meeting.

News reporter Gary Burton wrote an article about the accident that resulted in

Williams’s death. In gathering information for the article, Burton spoke to Manuel Bulhoes,

the high school assistant principal, who told him that Williams had been in Arkadelphia for

a regional band meeting.

Jennifer Shnaekel, the principal at Malvern High School, agreed that Williams used

his personal vehicle to travel to and from school activities. She was aware of ASBOA in

general but did not know that Williams was attending the meeting on 26 April 2022. She

also did not know whether the meeting was mandatory. In her opinion, Williams’s stopping

to help someone on the side of the road did not benefit the school in any way. The school

district did benefit, however, from Williams attending the ASBOA meeting because its work

allowed the students “to grow musically and academically.”

The ALJ found that Williams had been performing employment services at the time

of the fatal accident and made the following findings.

Here, the Claimant was the Band Director for Malvern High School
for over three decades. He was required to routinely travel as part of his duties
as a band director. This is established by the testimony of all of the witnesses.
Therefore, I find that the Claimant was required to travel as an integral part
of his job. Although the Claimant often times used his persona[l] vehicle to
travel, he did not request reimbursement from the school district. The
evidence shows that the Claimant was returning home from a mandatory
regional band meeting that benefitted the students and the school district. . . .
I find that the Claimant was performing employment services at the time that
his fatal work accident occurred because he had not yet returned home. His

3
accident occurred while returning home, although he had gotten out of his
car along the path home to help other motorists.

....

The record shows that the accident occurred within the time and space
boundaries of the employment, when the Claimant was directly carrying out
the employer’s purpose by returning home from his trip. Whether or not the
Claimant was assisting other individuals on the road or in his vehicle, the
record indicates [he] was attempting to return home at the time of his
accident.

MSD appealed to the full Commission, which reversed the ALJ’s decision. The

Commission reasoned,

The relevant question in the present matter is not whether the
respondents benefitted from Kenneth Williams’ attendance at the Region II
Spring Meeting on April 26, 2022. Instead, the critical inquiry in accordance
with Act 796 is whether the claimant was performing employment services
when the injury occurred. See Parker v. Comcast Cable Corp., 100 Ark. App. 400,
269 S.W.3d 391 (2007), citing Moncus v. Billingsley Logging, 366 Ark. 383, 235
S.W.3d 877 (2006). . . . The Commission is bound to examine the activity
the claimant was engaged in at the time of the accident in determining
whether or not he was performing employment services. Hill v. LDA Leasing,
2010 Ark. App. 271, 374 S.W.3d 268 (2010). The preponderance of evidence
in the present matter demonstrates that the claimant was not directly or
indirectly benefitting his employer when he exited his vehicle and entered the
median on Interstate 30 on the evening of April 26, 2022. The Full
Commission finds credible Jennifer Shnaekel’s testimony that the claimant’s
actions following the motor vehicle accident on April 26, 2022 did not benefit
the Malvern School District. Again, the critical inquiry is whether the
claimant was performing employment services when the injury occurred. See
Parker, supra.

An employee is performing employment services when he is doing
something that is generally required by his employer. Coker, supra. The
record in the present matter shows that Ken Williams was acting nobly and
generously when [he] offered assistance to other individuals following a motor
vehicle accident on April 26, 2022, while the claimant was returning to
Malvern from Arkadelphia. Nevertheless, the evidence does not demonstrate
that Mr. Williams was performing employment services at the time of his
tragic fatality.

4
(Emphasis in original.) Williams timely appealed the Commission’s decision.

We review the Commission’s decision in the light most favorable to its findings and

affirm when the decision is supported by substantial evidence. Parker v. Atl. Rsch. Corp., 87

Ark. App. 145, 189 S.W.3d 449 (2004). Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. It is the Commission’s duty to

make determinations of credibility, to weigh the evidence, and to resolve conflicts in

medical testimony and evidence. Martin Charcoal, Inc. v. Britt, 102 Ark. App. 252, 284

S.W.3d 91 (2008). We will reverse the Commission’s decision if we are convinced that

fair-minded persons with the same facts before them could not have reached the conclusions

of the Commission. Pulaski Cnty. Special Sch. Dist. v. Stewart, 2010 Ark. App. 487, 375

S.W.3d 758.

In order for an accidental injury to be compensable, it must arise out of and in the

course of employment. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i) (Supp. 2023). A compensable

injury does not include an injury incurred at a time when employment services were not

being performed. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(B)(iii). An employee is performing

employment services when he or she is doing something that is generally required by his or

her employer. Cont’l Constr. Co. v. Nabors, 2015 Ark. App. 60, 454 S.W.3d 762. We use

the same test to determine whether an employee is performing employment services as we

do when determining whether an employee is acting within the course and scope of

employment. Pifer v. Single Source Transp., 347 Ark. 851, 69 S.W.3d 1 (2002). The test is

whether the injury occurred within the time and space boundaries of the employment when

the employee was carrying out the employer’s purpose or advancing the employer’s interest,

5
either directly or indirectly. Id. Moreover, whether an employee was performing

employment services within the course of employment depends on the particular facts and

circumstances of each case. Ctrs. for Youth & Families v. Wood, 2015 Ark. App. 380, 466

S.W.3d 422.

Williams’s argument on appeal largely tracks the ALJ’s reasoning below. He asserts

that he often had to travel outside of normal school hours in his capacity as band director,

and he routinely used his own vehicle for travel to various events. Travel was clearly an

integral part of his job. Williams was also required to be a member of ASBOA in order for

students to be eligible to participate in all-region and all-state activities and competitions,

and his attendance at ASBOA meetings was mandatory.

Williams contends that Interstate 30 was not part of his normal route home from

school, and he would not have been on Interstate 30 at the time of the accident but for the

mandatory ASBOA meeting in Arkadelphia. While Williams does not clearly connect the

dots on this point, he is essentially arguing that his situation falls under the positional-risk

doctrine, which states that an injury is compensable if it would not have happened but for

the fact that the conditions or obligations of the employment put the claimant in the position

where he or she was injured. 1 Askins v. Kroger Ltd. P’ship I, 2018 Ark. 23, 535 S.W.3d 629.

He also asserts that his travel was in furtherance of his employment duties and both directly

1
Williams also mentions exceptions to the “going and coming” rule and the “special
errand” exception, but he does not develop an argument applying those exceptions to the
facts of his case.

6
and indirectly benefited his employer. He concludes that the Commission erred in holding

that he was not performing employment services at the time of his death.

MSD denies that the positional-risk doctrine applies and argues that Williams was

not doing anything related to his job as a band director at the time of his injuries. While

he was performing a good deed by assisting strangers after an accident, that act was not an

obligation or condition of his employment. MSD explains that Williams left the safety of

his vehicle to go into the median on Interstate 30, which placed him in a more dangerous

situation than that of the general public in the vicinity. There is no evidence that the

assistance he offered directly or indirectly advanced the interests of his employer. MSD

asserts that while the accident was tragic, Williams was not in the course and scope of his

employment when it occurred. It asserts that the Commission’s finding that Williams was

not performing employment services at the time of his death should be affirmed.

In reply, Williams reiterates that he was traveling home from a mandatory work

meeting at the time of his death and that his travel was clearly directly and indirectly

furthering MSD’s interests. He denies that MSD should be absolved from liability because

he stepped out of his vehicle and again argues that he would not have been on Interstate 30

at the time of the accident if not for his mandatory attendance at the meeting in Arkadelphia.

Williams’s argument focuses on his attendance at the ASBOA meeting, the role that

travel played in his regular job duties, and in particular, the reason for his presence on

Interstate 30 the day of the accident. However, we agree with the Commission that the

relevant inquiry for compensability purposes is whether Williams was performing

employment services at the time his injuries occurred, i.e., when he was in the center

7
median of the interstate assisting other motorists. Under the increased-risk doctrine, injuries

are compensable if the employment exposed the employee to a greater degree of risk than

other members of the general public in the same vicinity. Jivan v. Economy Inn & Suites, 370

Ark. 414, 260 S.W.3d 281 (2007). However, Williams’s employment as the band director

for Malvern High School did not expose him to greater risk than other members of the

general public in the same vicinity. Williams decided to exit his vehicle and enter the center

median of the interstate, thereby placing himself at greater risk than other members of the

general public. While Williams was certainly performing a good deed at the time of his

fatal injury, he was not performing any activity inherently necessary for the performance of

his job, nor was he directly or indirectly advancing his employer’s interest. We hold that

reasonable minds could reach the conclusion that Williams was not performing employment

services at the time of his injury and affirm the Commission’s decision.

Affirmed.

GLADWIN and HIXSON, JJ., agree.

Caldwell Law Firm, P.A., by: Andy L. Caldwell, for appellant.

Worley, Wood & Parrish, P.A., by: Melissa Wood, for appellees.

8