Penter v. Baldwin Piano & Organ Co.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Penter v. Baldwin Piano & Organ Co.

832 S.W.2d 215, 309 Ark. 487, 1992 Ark. LEXIS 313

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedMay 26, 1992

Docket92-385

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 832 S.W.2d 215 (Penter v. Baldwin Piano & Organ Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Penter v. Baldwin Piano & Organ Co., 832 S.W.2d 215, 309 Ark. 487, 1992 Ark. LEXIS 313 (Ark. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The petitioner, Tammy Penter, asks that we review the decision of the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirming a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission. The Commission found the evidence did not support Ms. Penter’s claim for temporary total disability which had been allowed by the Administrative Law Judge.

Ms. Penter argued to the Court of Appeals that it should change its standard of review from that of whether there is “substantial evidence” to support the commission’s decision to whether there is “substantial evidence on the record as a whole,” a standard applied in Gavin v. Heckler, 811 F.2d 1195 (8th Cir. 1987).

The same issue was raised in Scarbrough v. Cherokee Enterprises, 306 Ark. 641, 816 S.W.2d 876 (1991). We affirmed the Court of Appeals decision in that case but pointed out that there was no due process issue with respect to the manner in which facts were ascertained because there was no disagreement between the Administrative Law Judge who heard the evidence and the Commission. We noted that if there had been a disagreement, and the question turned on credibility of witnesses seen and heard only by the Administrative Law Judge, a due process of Law issue might have been presented.

Ms. Penter’s petition for review in this case suggests there must have been a disagreement over credibility because the Administrative Law Judge believed her claim that she was unable to work during a certain time but the Commission obviously did not.

We find no dispute between the Administrative Law Judge and the Commission as to any fact. Ms. Penter’s claim of disability is the ultimate issue in the case, and there is evidence in the record to support, and evidence to dispute, her claim. The decision of the Commission did not turn on the credibility of a witness or witnesses but upon the weighing of medical opinion testimony.

Review denied.'

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The petitioner, Tammy Penter, asks that we review the decision of the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirming a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission. The Commission found the evidence did not support Ms. Penter’s claim for temporary total disability which had been allowed by the Administrative Law Judge.

Ms. Penter argued to the Court of Appeals that it should change its standard of review from that of whether there is “substantial evidence” to support the commission’s decision to whether there is “substantial evidence on the record as a whole,” a standard applied in Gavin v. Heckler, 811 F.2d 1195 (8th Cir. 1987).

The same issue was raised in Scarbrough v. Cherokee Enterprises, 306 Ark. 641, 816 S.W.2d 876 (1991). We affirmed the Court of Appeals decision in that case but pointed out that there was no due process issue with respect to the manner in which facts were ascertained because there was no disagreement between the Administrative Law Judge who heard the evidence and the Commission. We noted that if there had been a disagreement, and the question turned on credibility of witnesses seen and heard only by the Administrative Law Judge, a due process of Law issue might have been presented.

Ms. Penter’s petition for review in this case suggests there must have been a disagreement over credibility because the Administrative Law Judge believed her claim that she was unable to work during a certain time but the Commission obviously did not.

We find no dispute between the Administrative Law Judge and the Commission as to any fact. Ms. Penter’s claim of disability is the ultimate issue in the case, and there is evidence in the record to support, and evidence to dispute, her claim. The decision of the Commission did not turn on the credibility of a witness or witnesses but upon the weighing of medical opinion testimony.

Review denied.'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

832 S.W.2d 215, 309 Ark. 487, 1992 Ark. LEXIS 313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/penter-v-baldwin-piano-organ-co-ark-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack