Sisters of Mercy Health Sys v. Fouts

2016 Ark. App. 51

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: January 27, 2016
• Docket: CV-15-579
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 51

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CV-15-579

SISTERS OF MERCY HEALTH Opinion Delivered January 27, 2016 SYSTEM AND ST. MARY ROGERS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS APPELLANTS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION [NO. G101582]

V.

JAMES FOUTS APPELLEE AFFIRMED

PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge

Sisters of Mercy Health System and St. Mary Rogers Memorial Hospital appeal a

decision by the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (“Commission”) that James

Fouts, who suffered an admittedly compensable, lower-back injury resulting in a 26%

disability rating to the body as a whole, was permanently and totally disabled and awarded him

benefits. On appeal, appellants argue that there was insufficient evidence that Fouts’s back

injury was the major cause of his disability or that he was incapable of earning any meaningful

wages, and, therefore, the Commission’s determination that he was permanently and totally

disabled was not supported by substantial evidence. Having reviewed the evidence presented,

we disagree and affirm by issuing this memorandum opinion.

We may issue memorandum opinions in any or all of the following cases:

(a) Where the only substantial question involved is the sufficiency of the evidence; Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 51

(b) Where the opinion, or findings of fact and conclusions of law, of the trial court or agency adequately explain the decision and we affirm;

(c) Where the trial court or agency does not abuse its discretion and that is the only substantial issue involved; and

(d) Where the disposition of the appeal is clearly controlled by a prior holding of this court or the Arkansas Supreme Court and we do not find that our holding should be changed or that the case should be certified to the supreme court.

In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985).

This case falls within categories (a) and (b). The only substantial question on appeal is

whether the Commission’s opinion was supported by sufficient evidence. A review of the

record reflects that it was. Further, the opinion of the administrative law judge, adopted by

the Commission, adequately explained the decision reached. Accordingly, we affirm by

memorandum opinion.

Affirmed.

GRUBER and HOOFMAN, JJ., agree.

Anderson, Murphy & Hopkins, L.L.P., by: Randy P. Murphy, for appellant.

Wren Law Firm, by: Whitney B. James, for appellee.