Contant v. Retention Mgmt. Servs.

Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 633
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CV-13-500
Opinion Delivered November 6, 2013
CLIFF ERNEST CONTANT
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
V. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSION
[NO. G103936]
RETENTION MANAGEMENT
SERVICES; MARLIN TRANSIT, INC.;
and DEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL
DISABILITY FUND
APPELLEES AFFIRMED
ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Chief Judge
This appeal follows the February 12, 2013 decision of the Workers’ Compensation
Commission (Commission) that affirmed the August 2, 2012 opinion of the Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) awarding appellant, Cliff Contant, wage-loss disability benefits in an amount
equal to a seventeen-percent impairment in addition to the eight-percent anatomical
impairment rating assigned to the body as a whole.1 Contant argues 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).
1
Appellees filed a notice of cross-appeal from the ALJ’s opinion but did not pursue
their cross-appeal from the Commission’s opinion.
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 633
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
(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.
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.
PITTMAN and WOOD, JJ., agree.
Walker, Shock & Harp, PLLC, by: Eddie H. Walker, Jr., for appellant.
Worley, Wood & Parrish, P.A., by: Melissa Wood, for appellees.
2