Lobina Constr. v. Bassett , 2016 Ark. App. 555 ( 2016 )

Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 555
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. E-16-146
LOBINA CONSTRUCTION Opinion Delivered November 16, 2016
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
BOARD OF REVIEW
V. [NO. 2016-BR-00218]
DARYL BASSETT, DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE AFFIRMED
SERVICES, and JOE MARTINEZ
APPELLEES
PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge
Lobina Construction appeals from a decision of the Arkansas Board of Review (Board),
which concluded that Lobina Construction had discharged the claimant, Joe Martinez, for
reasons other than misconduct in connection with the work and awarded Martinez benefits.
The only issue on appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Board’s
finding. We affirm.
The standard of review to be followed in such cases is clear:
We do not conduct a de novo review in appeals from the Board of Review. In
appeals of unemployment compensation cases we instead review the evidence and all
reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Board of
Review’s findings. The findings of fact made by the Board of Review are conclusive
if supported by substantial evidence; even when there is evidence upon which the
Board might have reached a different decision, the scope of judicial review is limited
to a determination of whether the Board could have reasonably reached its decision
based on the evidence before it. Substantial evidence is such evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 555
Barnard v. Dir., 2013 Ark. App. 143, at 2 (quoting Valentine v. Dir., 2012 Ark. App. 612, at
3). It is also clear that the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be accorded their
testimony are matters to be resolved by the Board of Review, Barnard, supra; like a jury, an
administrative body is free to believe or disbelieve the testimony of any witness. Gunter v.
Dir., 82 Ark. App. 346, 107 S.W.3d 902 (2003).
Here, the only issue presented is the sufficiency of the evidence. From our review of
the record, we conclude that the Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence.
Therefore, we affirm the Board’s decision by this memorandum opinion pursuant to section
(a) of In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985).
Affirmed.
VIRDEN and GLOVER, JJ., agree.
Rush & Rush, by: Patrick F. Flake, for appellant.
Phyllis A. Edwards, for appellee.
2