Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 759 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CA11-514 DAVID McCOLLISTER Opinion Delivered December 7, 2011 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS V. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION [NO. F809517] PAM TRANSPORT, INC., and SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT APPELLEES AFFIRMED RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge Appellant David McCollister appeals from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission affirming and adopting the administrative law judge’s finding that appellant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was entitled to additional medical treatment for his admittedly compensable work-related injury or that he was entitled to additional temporary-total-disability benefits. 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). 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
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 759 (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 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. Affirmed. WYNNE and BROWN, JJ., agree. Tolley & Brooks, P.A., by: Evelyn E. Brooks, for appellant. Mayton, Newkirk & Jones, by: David C. Jones, for appellees. -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.