not the courts, to consider. Our supreme court has repeatedly held that the determination of public policy lies almost exclusively with the legislature, and the courts will not interfere with that determination in the absence of palpable errors. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Henderson, 356 Ark. 335, 150 S.W.3d 276 (2004) (citations omitted). Therefore, Guerrero’s arguments are more appropriately addressed to the legislature, not the appellate court. See id. We also note that, even were we to agree with Guerrero, and if we had the ability to expand the intentional-tort exception, Guerrero is barred from pursuing a tort claim against OK Foods because he has already accepted workers’ compensation benefits. See Gourley v. Crossett Pub. Sch., 333 Ark. 178, 968 S.W.2d 56 (1998) (<HOLDING>). We therefore affirm. Affirmed. Glover and
recognizing that an appellants tort claim was barred by the doctrine of election of remedies where the appellant had previously pursued and recovered workers compensation benefits for the same injury recognizing a tort action when employee was dismissed for filing a workers compensation claim recognizing retaliatory discharge tort implied by the workers compensation act recognizing that a workers compensation insurer is responsible for covering any injury caused by the treatment of an industrial injury holding that the trial courts authority to initiate workers compensation benefits before the final adjudication was not divested by the legislature and was consistent with the stated purpose of the workers compensation act