Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 360 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CA09-1321 Opinion Delivered APRIL 28, 2010 ROY KILGORE APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS V. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CTL DISTRIBUTION, INC. [NO. E912560] PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY APPELLEES AFFIRMED ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge Appellant Roy Kilgore appeals a decision of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that he is not entitled to additional medical treatment or additional temporary-total-disability benefits. For reversal, appellant contends that the Commission erred in finding that additional medical services were not reasonable and necessary for the treatment of his compensable injury that occurred on July 18, 1999. Substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decision; therefore, we affirm. In reviewing decisions from the Workers’ Compensation Commission, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commission’s findings, and we affirm if the decision is supported by substantial evidence. Whitlach v. Southland Land & Dev., 84 Ark. App. 399, 141 S.W.3d 916 (2004). Substantial evidence is that relevant evidence which reasonable minds might accept as adequate to
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 360 support a conclusion. K II Constr. Co. v. Crabtree, 78 Ark. App. 222, 79 S.W.3d 414 (2002). 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. Geo Specialty Chem., Inc. v. Clingan, 69 Ark. App. 369, 13 S.W.3d 218 (2000). Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-508(a) (Supp. 2009) requires an employer to provide an injured employee such medical services “as may be reasonably necessary in connection with the injury received by the employee.” The employee has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that medical treatment is reasonable and necessary. Stone v. Dollar Gen. Stores, 91 Ark. App. 260, 209 S.W.3d 445 (2005). What constitutes reasonable and necessary medical treatment is a question of fact to be determined by the Commission. Bohannon v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 102 Ark. App. 37, 279 S.W.3d 502 (2008). Because the only question on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence and because the Commission’s opinion adequately explains the decision, we affirm by memorandum opinion. In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985). Affirmed. H ENRY and BROWN, JJ., agree. -2-
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.