Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 518 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CA11-44 Opinion Delivered September 14, 2011 CATHRYN A. JOHNSON APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION V. COMMISSION [NOS. F712515 AND F901259] BATESVILLE NURSING & REHABILITATION APPELLEE AFFIRMED JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Judge The appellant sustained a compensable injury to her left shoulder while working for appellee Batesville Nursing & Rehabilitation. Appellees provided medical treatment, including a requested change of physician. Asserting that the insurer denied her request for additional pain management, appellant filed a claim for additional medical treatment. The Commission denied the claim, finding that appellant failed to prove that the requested treatment was reasonably necessary for treatment of her compensable injury. Appellant argues three points on appeal, two of them going to the constitutionality of various aspects of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act. We cannot address these constitutional issues because they were neither presented to nor decided by the Commission, and therefore are not properly before us. 1 Johnson v. Hux, 28 Ark. App. 187, 772 S.W.2d 362 1 We note that the constitutional arguments raised by appellant’s attorney have been rejected by us many times. E.g., Stutzman v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 99 Ark. App. 19, 256 S.W.3d 524 (2007); Stiger v. State Line Tire Service, 72 Ark. App. 250, 35 S.W.3d 335 (2000);
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 518 (1989). The remaining issue concerns the sufficiency of the evidence to support the Commission’s findings. Because the Commission’s opinion adequately explains its decision and because we conclude that the Commission’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, we affirm by memorandum opinion. In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985). Affirmed. GLADWIN and BROWN, JJ., agree. Spencer Law Firm, by: Frederick S. “Rick” Spencer, for appellant. Worley, Wood & Parrish, P.A., by: Melissa Wood, for appellee. Sykes v. King Ready Mix, Inc., 2011 Ark. App. 271; Rippe v. Delbert Hooten Logging, 100 Ark. App. 227, 266 S.W.3d 217 (2007); Murphy v. Forsgren, 99 Ark. App. 223, 258 S.W.3d 794 (2007); Long v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 98 Ark. App. 70, 250 S.W.3d 263 (2007). However, appellant’s attorney does not acknowledge these precedents, much less make any attempt to distinguish them or present any argument that they should be overruled. See White v. Priest, 348 Ark. 135, 73 S.W.3d 572 (2002). 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.