Quick-It Enters. Inc. v. Dorsey , 2014 Ark. App. 103 ( 2014 )

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 103
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CV-13-768
QUICK-IT ENTERPRISES, INC. Opinion Delivered February 12, 2014
TRIANGLE INSURANCE COMPANY,
INC. APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
APPELLANTS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSION
V. [NO. G101686]
A.D. DORSEY
APPELLEE AFFIRMED
DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge
A.D. Dorsey worked as a truck driver for Quick-It Enterprises, Inc. He suffered an
admittedly compensable injury to his knee on February 24, 2011. Quick-It and Triangle
Insurance Company, Inc., the compensation carrier, controverted his claim for additional
medical benefits in the form of total knee replacement surgery. Following a hearing, the
Administrative Law Judge concluded that Dorsey had proved by a preponderance of the
evidence that the additional medical treatment was reasonable and necessary. The ALJ’s
decision was affirmed and adopted by the Commission. This appeal followed. In seeking
reversal of the Commission’s decision, appellants contend that it is not supported by
substantial evidence. We disagree and affirm.
In reviewing workers’ compensation cases, we must determine whether there is
substantial evidence to support the Commission’s decision. Williams v. Baldor Elect. Co., 2014
Ark. App. 62. Substantial evidence is that relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 103
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. The evidence is viewed in the light most
favorable to the findings of the Commission and is given its strongest probative value in favor
of the Commission’s decision. Id. The issue is not whether we might have reached a
different result or whether the evidence would have supported a contrary finding; if
reasonable minds could reach the Commission’s conclusion, we must affirm its decision. Id.
Memorandum opinions may be issued under certain circumstances delineated in In re
Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985), including 1) where the only
substantial question involved is the sufficiency of the evidence, and 2) where the opinion, or
findings of fact and conclusions of law, of the trial court or agency adequately explain the
decision and we affirm.
Here, the only issue presented to us challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the Commission’s decision to award additional medical treatment, and the
Commission’s opinion, which affirmed and adopted that of the ALJ, adequately explains the
basis for that decision. We therefore affirm by memorandum opinion.
Affirmed.
HARRISON and WYNNE, JJ., agree.
Roberts Law Firm, P.A., by: Jeremy Swearingen and Emily A. Neal, for appellants.
Laura Beth York, for appellee.
2