Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 740 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CA11-608 Opinion Delivered November 30, 2011 DELORES SHAW APPELLANT V. APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION RHEEM MFG. CO. and OLD COMMISSION REPUBLIC INS. CO. [NO. F913343] APPELLEES AFFIRMED WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge Appellant Delores Shaw appeals the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission’s (Commission) denial of benefits to her for an alleged compensable left-shoulder injury she claims she suffered while working for appellee Rheem Manufacturing Company. Shaw argues on appeal that the denial of benefits is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm. In appeals involving claims for workers’ compensation, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commission’s decision and affirm the decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. 1 Substantial evidence exists if reasonable minds could reach the Commission’s conclusion. 2 The issue is not whether the appellate court might have reached 1 Galloway v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2010 Ark. App. 610, 378 S.W.3d 210. 2 Id.
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 740 a different result from the Commission; if reasonable minds could reach the result found by the Commission, the appellate court must affirm. 3 Shaw contends that she suffered a compensable injury to her left shoulder between May 4, 2009 and July 9, 2009, due to rapid repetitive motion. She argues that the Commission’s failure to recognize her injury as compensable is not supported by the evidence. Shaw has failed to cite to any authority in support of her argument that the Commission erred by finding that she did not suffer a compensable injury. This court may refuse to consider an argument where appellant fails to cite any legal authority, and the failure to cite authority or make a convincing argument is a sufficient reason for affirmance. 4 Accordingly, we affirm. Affirmed. WYNNE and ABRAMSON, JJ., agree. 3 Id. 4 See Jewell v. Fletcher, 2010 Ark. 195, 377 S.W.3d 176 (citing Middleton v. Lockhart, 344 Ark. 572, 43 S.W.3d 113 (2001)). 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.