Skip to main content
Scott Allen Scholl
Avvo
Pro

Scott Scholl’s Legal Cases

5 total

  • Danner v. MBNA America Bank, N.A.

    Practice Area:
    Debt & Lending Agreements
    Outcome:
    Consumer allowed to challenge arbitration award
    Description:
    A credit card company mailed an amendment to Cardholder Agreement requiring that any disputes be resolved through binding arbitration, and stated that if the consumer did not agree to the amendment she must provide written notice to the company. A dispute arose, and the company submitted a claim to arbitration and an award was filed against the consumer. The company filed a petition in the Circuit Court to confirm the award, and the consumer filed a response stating that she never agreed to arbitration and so the award was therefore invalid. The company alleged that the consumer could not challenge the award inasmuch as she did not move to have it set aside within 90 days of the granting of the award pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act. The Arkansas Supreme Court agreed that the 90 day time limit to challenge the award did not bar the consumer’s motion to set aside the award on the grounds that the parties had not entered into a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement.
  • Danner v. Discover Bank

    Practice Area:
    Debt Collection
    Outcome:
    Burden placed on bank to prove consumer debt
    Description:
    A credit card company brought suit against a consumer, asserting that the consumer was past due on her account. The consumer did not expressly deny that the card charges were hers, but simply stated that she had no recollection and put the creditor to its proof. The trial court found in favor of the creditor on the basis of its findings that the debtor did not say without question that the charges were not hers, and that payments had been made on the account. On appeal, the consumer asserted that the trial court impermissibly shif3d the burden of proof to her to show that the charges were not authorized. The Court of Appeals agreed, finding that under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1643(b) the creditor has the burden of proving that any disputed use made of the card was authorized. The creditor failed to do so, relying instead only on its own records that reflected an account and debt that it attributed to the debtor, and by evidence that the debtor made a few payments on the account before requesting validation of the debt.
  • S.W. Ark. Dev. Council, Inc. v. Tidwell

    Practice Area:
    Workers Compensation
    Outcome:
    Injured Worker Recieves Workers Comp Benefits
    Description:
    Ms. Tidwell worked as an in-home client service assistant, providing assisted-living services for home-bound persons in southern Arkansas. She had provided services to one client and was driving toward another client's home. En route, she pulled off the highway into a convenience store parking lot to buy a soft drink because she was thirsty. She returned to her vehicle, and as she drove out of the parking lot and back onto the highway, her vehicle was hit by a truck. She filed a claim for the injuries she sustained in the accident. Southwest resisted the claim on the basis that she was not performing employment services at the time of her injury because she had deviated from her job duties. Ms. Tidwell contended that she did not deviate from her duties because this personal need was no different than any other such need in a fixed workplace. She also contended that even if she had "deviated" from her work momentarily, at the time of her injury she was traveling toward the next work site and had resumed her work activities. The administrative law judge denied benefits and she appealed to the Full Commission, which reviewed the relevant case authority and found that her claim was compensable. The employer appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the cases relied on by Ms. Tidwell and the Full Commission were distinguishable because in those cases, the claimant was actually on the employer's premises and, further, that the "coming and going rule" provided that Ms. Tidwell was not entitled to benefits for injuries suffered while traveling to or from work. The Court of Appeals found in favor of Ms. Tidwell, finding that her injuries were incurred while she was acting within the scope of her employment.
  • S.W. Ark. Dev. Council, Inc. v. Tidwell

    Practice Area:
    Workers Compensation
    Outcome:
    Injured Worker Recieves Workers Comp Benefits
    Description:
    Ms. Tidwell worked as an in-home client service assistant, providing assisted-living services for home-bound persons in southern Arkansas. She had provided services to one client and was driving toward another client's home. En route, she pulled off the highway into a convenience store parking lot to buy a soft drink because she was thirsty. She returned to her vehicle, and as she drove out of the parking lot and back onto the highway, her vehicle was hit by a truck. She filed a claim for the injuries she sustained in the accident. Southwest resisted the claim on the basis that she was not performing employment services at the time of her injury because she had deviated from her job duties. Ms. Tidwell contended that she did not deviate from her duties because this personal need was no different than any other such need in a fixed workplace. She also contended that even if she had "deviated" from her work momentarily, at the time of her injury she was traveling toward the next work site and had resumed her work activities. The administrative law judge denied benefits and she appealed to the Full Commission, which reviewed the relevant case authority and found that her claim was compensable. The employer appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the cases relied on by Ms. Tidwell and the Full Commission were distinguishable because in those cases, the claimant was actually on the employer's premises and, further, that the "coming and going rule" provided that Ms. Tidwell was not entitled to benefits for injuries suffered while traveling to or from work. The Court of Appeals found in favor of Ms. Tidwell, finding that her injuries were incurred while she was acting within the scope of her employment.
  • Forte v. City of Jacksonville

    Practice Area:
    Workers Compensation
    Outcome:
    Recovery for Injured Police Officer
    Description:
    Represented police officer for disability caused by PTSD following a shoot out. See: http://jqsworks.wordpress.com/arkansas-stories/wins/