Rector v. Healthsouth

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 135
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
CV-13-742
No.
Opinion Delivered February 19, 2014
MARY RECTOR APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
APPELLANT COMMISSION
[NO. G107720]
V.
HEALTHSOUTH and ESIS, INC.
APPELLEES AFFIRMED
RHONDA K. WOOD, Judge
Appellant, Mary Rector, appeals from an Arkansas Workers’ Compensation
Commission decision denying her claim for additional medical treatment for her
compensable lower-back injury. The Commission found that Rector did not meet her
burden of proof. Rector argues that substantial evidence does not support the
Commission’s finding. We disagree and affirm.
On appeal, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commission’s
findings and affirm if those findings are supported by substantial evidence. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. v. Brown, 82 Ark. App. 600, 120 S.W.3d 153 (2003). Substantial evidence is relevant
evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. The
issue is not whether we might have reached a different result than the Commission, but
whether reasonable minds could reach the Commission’s decision. Pulaski Cnty. Special
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 135
Sch. Dist. v. Tenner, 2013 Ark. App. 569. The Commission determines the credibility of
the witnesses, the weight to be given their testimony, and resolves conflicting medical
evidence. Richardson Waste, Inc. v. Corcoran, 2010 Ark. App. 816, 379 S.W.3d 77.
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;
(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). The only issue in
this appeal is whether substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decision. Further,
the Commission’s opinion, adopting the administrative law judge’s findings, adequately
explains the basis for denying Rector’s claim. We therefore affirm by memorandum
opinion.
Affirmed.
HARRISON and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree.
Walker, Shock & Harp, PLLC, by: Eddie H. Walker, Jr., for appellant.
Mayton, Newkirk & Jones, by: David C. Jones, for appellees.
2