Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 312 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CA11-1143 Opinion Delivered May 2, 2012 DAVID P. HENSON APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS V. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION [G006165] NATIONAL TRANSIT STAFFING, INC., AND CHARTIS INSURANCE COMPANY APPELLEES AFFIRMED DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge David Henson appeals from the Workers’ Compensation Commission’s denial of his claims for additional medical care and for temporary-total disability benefits. He sustained compensable injuries to his left shoulder, right hip, right leg, and lower back. He was compensated for treatment from July 20, 2010, through September 10, 2010. He subsequently tried to establish that he had also sustained a compensable injury to his cervical spine, that he was entitled to additional medical treatment for his admittedly compensable injuries, and that he was entitled to temporary total-disability benefits from July 21, 2010, through a date yet to be determined. Following a hearing on these claims, the ALJ concluded in a well-reasoned decision that Henson had failed to prove 1) that he had sustained a compensable injury to his cervical spine, 2) that he was entitled to additional medical treatment, and 3) that he was
Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 312 entitled to temporary total-disability benefits. The Commission affirmed and adopted the ALJ’s decision, and this appeal followed. Henson challenges only the denial of additional medical treatment for his compensable injuries and the denial of temporary total-disability benefits. Where, as here, the Commission denies claims because of the failure to show entitlement to benefits by a preponderance of the evidence, the substantial-evidence standard of review applicable to workers’ compensation cases requires that we affirm if the Commission’s opinion displays a substantial basis for denial of relief. Engle v. Thompson Murray, Inc., 96 Ark. App. 200, 239 S.W.3d 561 (2006). Here, the Commission’s opinion does display a substantial basis for the denial of Henson’s claims. We therefore affirm by memorandum opinion, pursuant to sections (a) and (b), because the Commission’s opinion displays a substantial basis for denial of Henson’s claims and adequately explains its decision. See In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985). Affirmed. HART and GRUBER, JJ., agree. Walker, Shock & Harp, PLLC, by: J. Randolph Shock, for appellant. Worley, Wood & Parrish, P.A., by: Jarrod S. Parrish, 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.