Williamson v. Boonville Human Dev. Ctr.

2017 Ark. App. 118

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: March 1, 2017
• Docket: CV-16-634
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 118

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No.CV-16-634

OPINION DELIVERED: MARCH 1, 2017 LYNDA LEWIS WILLIAMSON APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION V. COMMISSION [NO. G202939] BOONEVILLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CENTER & PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION AFFIRMED APPELLEES

ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge

Appellant Lynda Lewis Williamson appeals the April 5, 2016 opinion of the Arkansas

Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) that affirmed and adopted the

September 15, 2015 opinion of the administrative law judge, which denied appellant’s

request for additional medical treatment and temporary-total-disability benefits associated

with her left-shoulder injury that occurred on April 6, 2012. Appellant argues that the

decision of the Commission is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

We review a decision of the Commission to determine whether there is substantial

evidence to support it. Crow v. Advanced Dental Implants & Denture Ctr., 2016 Ark. App.

361. We review the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light

most favorable to the Commission’s findings. Id. It is the Commission’s province to weigh

the evidence and determine what is most credible. Id. The issue on appeal is not whether Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 118

we would have reached a different result or whether the evidence would have supported a

contrary conclusion; we will affirm if reasonable minds could reach the Commission’s

conclusion. Id.

It is the Commission’s duty, not ours, to make credibility determinations, to weigh

the evidence, and to resolve conflicts in the medical opinions, evidence, and testimony.

Green v. N. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 2016 Ark. App. 512. When the Commission has denied

a claim because of the claimant’s failure to meet his or her burden of proof, the substantial-

evidence standard of review requires that we affirm if the Commission’s opinion displays a

substantial basis for the denial of relief. Bolus v. Jack Cecil Hardware, 2013 Ark. App. 288.

Because this is the sole issue now before us, and because the Commission’s opinion

adequately explains the decision, we affirm by memorandum opinion. In re Memorandum

Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985) (per curiam).

Affirmed.

ABRAMSON and VIRDEN, JJ., agree.

Daily & Woods, P.L.L.C., by: Douglas M. Carson, for appellant.

Robert H. Montgomery, Public Employee Claims Division, for appellees.