Ark. Dep't of Corr. v. Clinkscale

Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 40
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CV-15-623
OPINION DELIVERED JANUARY 27, 2016
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION; PUBLIC
EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
APPELLANTS COMMISSION
[NO. G004355]
V.
ANDREW LEE CLINKSCALE AFFIRMED
APPELLEE
ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Chief Judge
This appeal follows the June 16, 2015 decision of the Workers’ Compensation
Commission (Commission) that affirmed and adopted the ALJ’s January 17, 2015 opinion
finding appellee Andrew Clinkscale to be permanently and totally disabled and also entitled
to out-of-pocket expenses for prescriptions. Appellants argue that substantial evidence does
not support the Commission’s decision. We find no error and issue this memorandum
opinion affirming the Commission’s decision. See In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App.
301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985).
Memorandum opinions may be issued in any or all of the following cases:
(a) Where the only substantial question involved is the sufficiency of the evidence;
(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
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 40
(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.
Id. at 302, 700 S.W.2d at 63. See Rector v. Healthsouth, 2014 Ark. App. 135, at 2.
This case falls squarely within categories (a) and (b). The only substantial question on
appeal is whether the Commission’s decision was supported by sufficient evidence. The
Commission’s opinion, which we affirm, adequately explains its decision.
It is the Commission’s duty, not ours, to make credibility determinations, to weigh
the evidence, and to resolve conflicts in the medical testimony and evidence. Jaramillo v.
Sys. Contracting, 2012 Ark. App. 200. We therefore affirm the Commission’s decision by
memorandum opinion pursuant to sections (a) and (b) of our per curiam, In re Memorandum
Opinions, supra.
Affirmed.
ABRAMSON and BROWN, JJ., agree.
Robert H. Montgomery, Public Employee Claims Division, for appellant.
J. Matthew Coe, for appellee.