{"id":"full_commission-H201552-2023-06-07","awcc_number":"H201552","decision_date":"2023-06-07","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Charles Leach","employer_name":"O.A.K. Construction, Inc","title":"LEACH VS. O.A.K. CONSTRUCTION, INC. AWCC# H201552 JUNE 7, 2023","outcome":"unknown","outcome_keywords":[],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Leach_Charles_H201552_20230607.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Leach_Charles_H201552_20230607.pdf","text_length":26008,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO. H201552 \n \n \nCHARLES LEACH, EMPLOYEE                                   CLAIMANT    \n \nO.A.K. CONSTRUCTION, INC., EMPLOYER                      RESPONDENT\n      \nLIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, CARRIER                     RESPONDENT\n    \n \nOPINION FILED JUNE 7, 2023 \n \nUpon review before the Full Commission, Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE JARID M. KINDER, Attorney at \nLaw, Fayetteville, Arkansas.   \n \nRespondents No. 1 represented by the HONORABLE ZACHARY F. \nRYBURN, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge: Reversed. \n \n \nOPINION AND ORDER \n  \nRespondents appeal the Opinion filed December 8, 2022 by the \nadministrative law judge (“ALJ”) finding, among other things, the following: \n1.  Claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that \nhe was an employee of Tom Leach, an uninsured \nsubcontractor of respondent OAK Construction, Inc. As such, \nrespondent is responsible for payment of workers’ \ncompensation benefits. \n2.  Claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that \nhe suffered a compensable injury on March 24, 2020, and that \nhe is entitled to medical benefits for said injury. \n\nLEACH – H201552                  2 \n \n \nFor the reasons set out below, the ALJ’s Opinion filed December 8, \n2022 is reversed.   \nI. HISTORY \nThe testimony in this matter was provided in large part by two \ninterested parties, Oliver Kiesel and Robert Thomas Leach (Tom), the \nclaimant’s brother. Due to the nature of the claimant’s injuries, he was \nunable to provide coherent testimony and as such we are left to rely on the \ntestimony of other individuals. Due to the shared last name of Charles and \nTom Leach, we will be referring to Tom Leach as simply “Tom,” throughout \nthis opinion. \nOliver Kiesel is the owner-operator of OAK Construction, Inc. (OAK). \nOAK contracted with Robert Thomas Leach (Tom) to complete the framing \nof a residential home in Gravette, Arkansas in 2020. OAK had worked with \nTom on smaller jobs before subcontracting with him for the house in \nGravette. OAK is in the business of building custom residential homes and \nMr. Kiesel testified that “basically everybody that works for OAK” is a \nsubcontractor. While there was conflicting testimony about whether Tom \npresented proof of workers’ compensation coverage to OAK, OAK did not \npresent any records of those documents at the September 29, 2022 \nhearing. \nTom Leach is a partner in the business Leach Framing, which he \ntestified has been in operation for approximately 20 years. Leach Framing, \n\nLEACH – H201552                  3 \n \n \nmade up of Robert Leach, Charles Leach, and John House obtained a \nworkers’ compensation policy from Liberty Mutual on April 10, 2019 with a \npolicy period from April 3, 2019 to April 3, 2020. The named insured was \nRobert Leach & Charles Leach and John House DBA Leach Framing. Tom \ntestified that Ms. Tish Botson went to Professional Insurance Group (PIG) in \nBentonville and obtained the policy on Leach Framing’s behalf when the \ncompany owned by her husband, Mike Botson, required that a policy be in \nplace for a job. The Liberty Mutual policy specifically excluded the named \npartners, Tom Leach, Charles Leach, and John House, from coverage. The \npartners excluded themselves from the policy to save money. \nDuring his testimony, Tom Leach referred to himself and the claimant \nas “we” regarding business decision making, demonstrating that the two \nmade decisions jointly, explaining at one point that, “[W]e do all kinds of \nthings. We side houses. We frame houses. We build decks. I mean we \nbuild fence (sic).” Tom later testified he understood the workers’ \ncompensation policy at issue “doesn’t cover anything for us anyway. It only \ncovers our employees or people working for us.” \n  Tom Leach, Charles Leach, and John House were working together \nat the home in Gravette. Tom would submit an invoice on a weekly basis to \nOAK reflecting the square footage that he, Charles Leach, and John house \nhad framed. Leach Framing did not have a bank account, so OAK made out \nchecks to Tom personally, and Tom would divide the money. Tom and the \n\nLEACH – H201552                  4 \n \n \nclaimant made more than any employee. No benefits or taxes were taken \nout of this pay. Leach Framing was made up of the three parties present at \nthe house in Gravette during the time of the claimant’s injury:    Tom Leach, \nCharles Leach, and John House. \n In an opinion filed December 8, 2022, the ALJ determined that the \nclaimant was an employee of an uninsured subcontractor, Tom Leach. The \nALJ was incorrect in this finding. If the claimant was an employee of Leach \nFraming, he was covered by the Liberty Mutual policy in effect at the time of \nthe accident. However, the preponderance of the evidence presented \nshows the claimant was a partner in Leach Framing and was excluded from \ncoverage. Under either scenario, the claimant was not an employee of an \nuninsured subcontractor and OAK is not responsible for any benefits since \nOAK did not contract with an insured subcontractor. \nII. ADJUDICATION \nThe threshold question is whether the claimant was a partner in \nLeach Framing and therefore covered by the Liberty Mutual policy. This \nquestion falls outside the scope of the Act and the legal fact that the \nclaimant was a partner in Leach Framing was not investigated by the ALJ in \nhis December 8, 2022 opinion. The existence of Leach Framing and who, \nor what, the Liberty Mutual policy covered in March 2020 is the key to this \ncase, as pursuant to our Rules, “[w]hen a sole proprietorship or partnership \nfails to elect to cover the sole proprietor or partners under [the Code], the \n\nLEACH – H201552                  5 \n \n \nprime contractor is not liable under this chapter for injuries sustained by the \nsole proprietor or partners if the sole proprietor or partners are not \nemployees of the prime contractor.” Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-402(c)(1)(A). \nThere was no proof presented at the hearing that the claimant was an \nemployee of OAK.   \nLeach Framing was acting as a subcontractor for OAK on March 24, \n2020 whether or not the parties were operating under the name. Although \nwhat we call a partnership may not always be defined with exact precision, \nthe test for determining the existence of a partnership is well established. \n“The association of two (2) or more persons to carry on as co-owners a \nbusiness for profit forms a partnership, whether or not the persons intend to \nform a partnership.” Ark. Code Ann. § 4-46-202. The business association \nthat is known as a partnership is not one that can be defined with precision. \nTo the contrary, a partnership is a contractual relationship that may vary, in \nform and substance, in an almost infinite variety of ways. Zajac v. Harris, \n241 Ark. 737, 410 S.W.2d 593 (1967). “[E]xcept in certain specific instances \na partnership is not an entity separate and apart from its members and \nremains no more than the aggregate of the individuals forming it.” Pate v. \nMartin, 13 Ark. App. 182, 681 S.W.2d 410 (1985).   \nIt is clear from the record that the claimant, Tom Leach, and John \nHouse formed the partnership Leach Framing and operated under the \nname Leach Framing off and on for a period of twenty (20) years. Even \n\nLEACH – H201552                  6 \n \n \nwhen they were not using the name Leach Framing they were acting as a \npartnership, because a partnership is no more than the sum of its individual \nmembers. The three members of Leach Framing worked together on jobs \nand shared the income. Although checks were made out by OAK to Tom \nLeach individually, Tom would cash those checks and pay his partners and \nany employees based on their hourly rate, and Tom Leach did not retain \nany portion of those checks beyond his hourly earnings. Tom and Charles \nearned more than anyone else and only one other person earned as much \nas John House. \nTom Leach made it clear that he considered his business with the \nclaimant to be a partnership. Tom Leach repeatedly referred to himself and \nthe claimant as “we” regarding business decision making throughout his \ntestimony and, acknowledged at the hearing that he understood that the \nLiberty Mutual Policy did not cover Tom Leach, Charles Leach, or John \nHouse showing a full understanding that they were owners and partners in \nLeach Framing. He went so far as to state that the workers’ compensation \npolicy at issue “doesn’t cover anything on us anyway.  It only covers our \nemployees or people working for us.” These parties held out Leach Framing \nas a partnership in obtaining a workers’ compensation policy and named \nRobert Leach, Charles Leach, and John House as the partners of Leach \nFraming and specifically excluded themselves from coverage.   \n\nLEACH – H201552                  7 \n \n \nFinally, the clearest indicator that the claimant was a partner of \nLeach Framing and that Leach Framing was operating as an insured \nsubcontractor on March 24, 2020 is the existence of the Liberty Mutual \nworkers’ compensation policy itself. Although Tom asserts that Tish Botson \nwent to Professional Insurance Group (“PIG”) in Bentonville and had the \npolicy “wrote up the way that it is written up,” this defies reason. Tom Leach \nis an interested party and it is the within the sole discretion of the \nCommission to determine the credibility of a witness’ testimony; however, \n\"[w]here there are contradictions in the evidence, it is within the \nCommission's province to reconcile conflicting evidence and to determine \nthe true facts.\" Templeton v. Dollar General Store, 2014 Ark. App. 248, 434 \nS.W.3d 417 (2014). Testimony of an interested party is taken as disputed \nas a matter of law. Ester v. National Home Ctrs. Inc., 335 Ark. 356, 981 \nS.W.2d 91 (1998); Flynn v. J. B. Hunt Transp., 2012 Ark. App. 111, 389 \nS.W.3d 67 (2012) (\"[T]he uncorroborated testimony of an interested party is \nnever to be considered uncontradicted.\"). The Commission is not required \nto believe the testimony of the claimant or any other witness but may accept \nand translate into findings of fact only those portions of the testimony that it \ndeems worthy of belief. Long v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 98 Ark. App. 70, 250 \nS.W.3d 263 (2007). It does not stand to reason that a person or entity could \nsend a third party to an insurance agent to enter into a contract on their \nbehalf with little to no information about the insured. Tom’s testimony on \n\nLEACH – H201552                  8 \n \n \nthis point is entirely self-serving. It is obvious that if Ms. Botson did in fact \nobtain coverage on Leach Framing’s behalf, Tom advised Ms. Botson that \nhe was a partner in Leach Framing along with Charles Leach and John \nHouse and agreed the three partners would be excluded from coverage. He \nadmitted this was done to save money. There is no way Ms. Botson came \nup with this information on her own, it could only have been supplied to her \nby Tom Leach. \nEven if PIG were willing to insure Leach Framing on the word of Tish \nBotson alone, Leach Framing was bound to Ms. Botson’s actions, as “our \nsupreme court has declared on a number of occasions that a principal is \nbound not only by the acts of an agent done under the principal's express \nauthority, but also by those acts of a general agent which are within the \napparent scope of his authority, whether they have been authorized or not, \nand even if they are contrary to express direction. The principal in such a \ncase is not only bound by the authority actually given to the general agent, \nbut by the authority which the third person dealing with him has the right to \nbelieve has been given to him.” Landmark Sav. Bank, F.S.B. v. Weaver-\nBailey Contractors, Inc., 22 Ark. App. 258, 739 S.W.2d 166 (1987) (citing \nSouthern Electrical Corp. v. Ashley-Chicot Electric Co-op, Inc., 220 Ark. \n940, 251 S.W.2d 813 (1952)). “A partner's knowledge, notice, or receipt of a \nnotification of a fact relating to the partnership is effective immediately as \nknowledge by, notice to, or receipt of a notification by the partnership, \n\nLEACH – H201552                  9 \n \n \nexcept in the case of a fraud on the partnership committed by or with the \nconsent of that partner.” Ark. Code Ann. § 4-46-102. If Tom’s testimony is to \nbe believed, Ms. Botson was granted the express authority to obtain \nworkers’ compensation coverage for Leach Framing and Leach Framing is \ntherefore bound by her actions. \nAll of this boils down to a simple conclusion under our laws. Charles \nLeach, Tom Leach, and John House over a period of approximately twenty \n(20) years held themselves out as a partnership known as Leach Framing.   \nBecause a partnership is no more than a sum of its individuals, Charles \nLeach, Tom Leach, and John House in fact formed Leach Framing whether \nthey operated under the name at a given time or not. For this reason, Leach \nFraming was the subcontractor for OAK at the house in Gravette on March \n24, 2020. Because Leach Framing, a partnership, was insured by the \nLiberty Mutual policy on that date, OAK is not responsible for any benefits \nfor injuries sustained by the claimant pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n402(c)(1)(A).   \nEven if we were to construe that the claimant was in fact an \nemployee of Leach Framing rather than a partner, it has been clearly \nestablished, supra, that Leach Framing is an existing partnership with an \nactive workers’ compensation policy on March 24, 2020 and the claimant \nwould be covered by the Liberty Mutual policy. As a result, the claimant was \nnot employed by an uninsured subcontractor. \n\nLEACH – H201552                  10 \n \n \nFinally, the claimant was not an employee of OAK at the time of his \ninjury and OAK is not responsible for the payment of his claim. There was \nabsolutely no proof presented to support this allegation. \nSimply put, the owner-operator of OAK, Oliver Kiesel, did not hire the \nclaimant and did not know the claimant. Oliver Kiesel hired a subcontractor, \nof which the claimant was either a partner or employee, that was insured for \nworkers’ compensation by Liberty Mutual on the date of this accident. So \nthe claimant was either excluded from coverage as a partner or covered as \nan employee under the Liberty Mutual Policy. Regardless, OAK is not \nresponsible for any benefits. \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n    ____________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n     \n    ____________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner   \n \n \n \nCommissioner Willhite dissents. \n \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n After my de novo review of the record in this claim, I dissent from the \nmajority opinion finding that O.A.K. Construction, Inc. (hereinafter, referred \nto as, “O.A.K.”) is not responsible for the payment of benefits on this claim. \n\nLEACH – H201552                  11 \n \n \n  A. There was no true partnership between the \nclaimant, Tom Leach, and John House. \n “‘Partnership’ means an association of two (2) or more persons to \ncarry on as co-owners a business for profit formed under §4-46-202, \npredecessor law, or comparable law of another jurisdiction.”  Ark. Code \nAnn. §4-46-101(6).    A partnership is a voluntary contract between two or \nmore competent persons, to place their money, effects, labor, and skill, or \nsome of all of them, in a lawful commerce or business, with the \nunderstanding that there shall be a proportional sharing of the profits and \nlosses between them.   Bice v. Green, 64 Ark. App. 203, 981 S.W.2d 105 \n(1998) (citing Wymer v. Dedman, 233 Ark. 854, 350 S.W.2d 169 (1961)).   \nThe primary test to determine whether there is a partnership between \nparties is their actual intent to form and operate a partnership.   Id.    (citing \nBoeckmann v. Mitchell, 322 Ark. 198, 909 S.W.2d 308 (1995), and Culley v. \nEdwards, 44 Ark. 423 (1884)).    In determining whether the parties formed a \npartnership, the issue turns on what the parties have agreed to do, not on \nwhat they have agreed to call themselves.   Id.    (citing Central States Life \nIns. Co. v. Barrow, 190 Ark. 141, 77 S.W.2d 801 (1935)). \n The evidence preponderates that Leach Framing was not a true \npartnership but instead, was an affiliation conceived out of convenience for \nthe purpose of obtaining workers’ compensation insurance.  Tom Leach \n(hereinafter, referred to as, “Tom”) testified that Leach Framing “was just \n\nLEACH – H201552                  12 \n \n \nsomething we had to do so we would have insurance so we could work for \nanother individual”.  Tom explained that he, the claimant, John House, and \ntwo other individuals were doing a job for Mike Botson that required them to \nhave a workers’ compensation insurance policy.  When asked whether he \nheld himself out as a partner of Leach Framing, Tom testified, “... I did \nnothing.    I just agreed with a different builder so that I could keep working \nso that I could make a check”. \n Additionally, regarding how profits from the job with respondent-\nemployer were shared, Tom testified as follows: \nQ So how did you distribute that money that \n was paid to Tom Leach to other members \n of your crew? \n... \n \n[A] I would take it to his bank, cash the \n check.    I would divvy it up and pay \n everybody what they had coming. \n \nQ Tell me how you divvied it up. \n \nA In cash. \n \nQ And is there a certain method to this \n madness? \n \nA Uh-huh. \n \n THE COURT:  Is that a “yes”? \n THE WITNESS:    Yes, sir.    I am sorry, \nsir. \n THE COURT:   That’s okay. \n \nQ Okay.    Tell me how you divvied it up.   \nFor      example, you on Page 6 were wrote [sic] \n\nLEACH – H201552                  13 \n \n \n a 4,500-dollar check that we discussed \n earlier.    How did you divvy that up? \n \nA It was hourly. \n \nQ Each person’s hours? \n \nA Yes.  I don’t understand the question, sir. \n \nQ Did you divvy it up by a percentage?    Did \n you say out of this $4,500 I get a percent, \n Charles gets a percent, John gets a \n percent, and these other two employees \n get a percent? \n \nA No, sir. \n \nQ Okay.    How was it?    How was it divvied \n up? \n \nA I would cash a check.    I would do the \n math on how much they made per hour \n and then what it come out to, I paid them \n that much. \n \nQ Who made a – who was paid hourly? \n \nA Everybody. \n \nQ Yourself included? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ Did you make more than everyone else? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ Did you make more tha[n] Charles? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ Did Charles make more than everyone \n beside you? \n \n\nLEACH – H201552                  14 \n \n \nA Yes, probably.    Yes, in fact, he did. \n \nQ Did John make more than the other two \n employees that were not listed? \n \nA Actually, him and one other made the \n same.  \n \nQ And then the other one made less; is that \n correct? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \n Clearly, there was not a proportional sharing of profits between the \nclaimant, Tom and John House.    Each individual was paid based on their \nrespective hourly wages and the number of hours that he worked, just as \nmost traditional employees are. \n Therefore, based on the aforementioned, I find that there was not a \ntrue partnership between the claimant, Tom Leach, and John House. \n B. The contract to frame the house on Bethel Road was \nbetween Tom Leach and O.A.K. \n The Arkansas Court of Appeals defined a subcontractor as follows: \nA subcontractor is one who enters into a \ncontract with a person for the performance of \nwork which another has already contracted to \nperform.    In other words, subcontracting is \nmerely ‘farming out’ to others all or part of work \ncontracted to be performed by the original \ncontractor. \n \nGarcia v. A&M Roofing, 89 Ark. App. 251, 202 S.W.3d 532 (2005) (quoting \nBaily v. Simmons, 6 Ark. App. 193, 639 S.W.2d 526 (1982)). \n\nLEACH – H201552                  15 \n \n \n Oliver Kiesel testified that he was a residential contractor who is the \nowner-operator of O.A.K. Construction, Inc.    Kiesel testified further that \nO.A.K. builds custom homes.    According to Kiesel, he entered into a verbal \nagreement with Tom to frame a house that O.A.K. was constructing on \nBethel Road in Gravette, Arkansas.    Kiesel admitted that when he hired the \nLeaches he only dealt with Tom; that he did not know Charles Leach; and \nthat he did not know about Leach Framing. \n In addition, it is clear from the testimony that Tom had the expertise \nand decision-making authority to enter into the contract and that the other \nlaborers working with Tom were employees.    This is evidenced by the fact \nthat it was Tom who received the payments from O.A.K., determined how \nmuch others were paid, and actually made those payments.     \n Therefore, I find that Leach Framing was not a party to the contract \nto frame the Bethel Road house and that the contract was between Tom \nLeach and O.A.K.    I also find that the workers’ compensation insurance \npolicy covering Leach Framing did not provide coverage for Tom on the job \nhe worked for O.A.K.; thus, Tom was an uninsured subcontractor of O.A.K. \n C. The claimant was an employee of Tom Leach. \n  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-402 reads, in pertinent part: \n(a)    Where a subcontractor fails to secure \ncompensation required by this chapter, the \nprime contractor shall be liable for compensation \nto the employees of the subcontractor unless \nthere is an intermediate subcontractor who has \nworkers’ compensation coverage. \n\nLEACH – H201552                  16 \n \n \n \n The evidence also preponderates that the claimant was an employee \nof Tom.    Tom testified that he was a subcontractor of O.A.K. and was paid \nby check.    The four check stubs contained within the record were made \npayable to Tom Leach.    Tom testified further that he paid the claimant \nseparately from payments he received from O.A.K.         \n Tom admitted that at the time of the claimant’s work accident he did \nnot have an active certificate of non-coverage.    Tom also admitted that at \nthe time of the claimant’s work accident he did not have any workers’ \ncompensation insurance on himself as an individual nor did he have any \ninsurance that would cover the claimant. \n A copy of a Liberty Mutual workers’ compensation insurance policy \ninsuring “Robert Leach & Charles Leach and John House DBA Leach \nFraming” was contained within the record.  The policy specifically \nexcluded, the claimant, Tom and John House from coverage. \n Tom testified that he did not hold Leach Framing out to be the entity \ndoing the job at Bethel Road.    Regarding the entity, Leach Framing, Tom \ntestified as follows: \nQ Now, you listed that workers’ \n compensation insurance policy is I guess \n attributable to Robert Leach, Charles \n Leach and John House doing business as \n Leach Framing.    What is Leach \nFraming? \n \nA It’s just a business that we used in the \n past. \n\nLEACH – H201552                  17 \n \n \n \nQ And when you say a business that you \n used in the past, how long have you been \n using the name Leach Framing? \n \nA On and off for, I don’t know, 20 years. \n \nQ And is it registered anywhere? \n \nA No. \n \n... \n \nQ So does that business, does that consist \n of the partners, Robert Leach, Charles \n Leach, and John House? \n \nA No, not necessarily.    That there was just \n something we had to do so we would \n have insurance so we could work for \n another individual. \n \n... \n \nQ Now, you took out a workers’ \n compensation policy on a business called \n Leach Framing and listed Robert Leach \n and Charles Leach and John House as \n the members taking out that workers’ \n compensation policy; is that correct? \n \nA I think so. \n \n... \n \nQ Well did you take out a policy? \n \nA Yes, kind of.  I mean I don’t – that is why \nI   would like to explain my answer. \n \nQ What do you mean by kind of? \n \nA We were doing a job for Mr. Mike Botson \n (phonetic) and his wife Trish Botson and \n\nLEACH – H201552                  18 \n \n \n he told me that I needed to get a policy \n like this.    So Ms. Trish went to PIG In \n[sic]     Bentonville, Professional Insurance \n Group.    She had the policy wrote up.   \nShe     had it wrote up the way that it is written \n up.    She paid for the policy and then I \nhad    to pay them back the next two weeks out \n of the check, out of my draw.    I paid \nthem   what I owed them back at that time so \n that we had the insurance so that we \n could work. \n \nQ Okay.    And this is the same policy that \n was active during the incident that \n occurred with Charles at the Bethel home \n that you did renew for a second year; is \n that correct? \n \nA That they canceled.    I tried to renew and \n then they canceled it, if you will notice. \n \n... \n \nQ And you used this policy – let me step \n away from you here.    And you used this \n policy when working with Oliver as \n workers’ compensation insurance; is that \n correct?    What I mean by that is Oliver \n required workers’ compensation \n insurance to work for him; is that correct? \n \nA No, sir.    He never asked me for my \n insurance.    He asked me for my general \n liability and I told him that I could get him \n [a] copy down at Randy’s.  And then he \n asked about the workmen’s comp, that \n policy, only I want to say three or four \n months ago. \n \n Tom also testified that he always considered the claimant an \nemployee and only named the claimant as a partner in Leach Framing for \n\nLEACH – H201552                  19 \n \n \nthe purposes of the workers' compensation insurance policy “because he \ncouldn’t afford to pay taxes or, you know, the nine percent”. \n Based on the aforementioned, I find that the claimant was an \nemployee of Tom Leach.    I also find that Tom Leach was an uninsured \nsubcontractor of the prime contractor, O.A.K.    Thus, pursuant to Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-402(a), O.A.K. is responsible for paying workers’ compensation \nbenefits in this matter. \n For the foregoing reasons, I dissent from the majority opinion. \n \n      __________________________ \nM. Scott Willhite, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H201552 CHARLES LEACH, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT O.A.K. CONSTRUCTION, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JUNE 7, 2023 Upon review before the Full Commission, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. Claimant represented b...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:46.266Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H201552-2023-06-07","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Leach_Charles_H201552_20230607.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}