Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 266 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CV-13-1018 JEROME ANDERSON Opinion Delivered April 30, 2014 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS V. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION [NO. G200837] FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC., EMPLOYER, and YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC., CARRIER APPELLEES AFFIRMED PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge Appellant Jerome Anderson appeals the decision of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission denying his claim for benefits associated with a back injury that he asserts was sustained during his employment with appellee Freight Systems, Inc. The Commission found that Anderson had failed to prove that he had sustained a compensable injury. 1 On appeal to this court, Anderson argues that the Commission’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence. After reviewing the evidence presented, we disagree and affirm by issuing this memorandum opinion. 1 The Commission affirmed and adopted the opinion of the administrative law judge (ALJ). Typically, on appeal to our court, we review only the decision of the Commission, not that of the ALJ. Death & Permanent Total Disability Trust Fund v. Myers, 2014 Ark. App. 102. However, when the Commission affirms and adopts the ALJ’s opinion, thereby making the findings and conclusions of the ALJ the Commission’s findings and conclusions, our court considers both the ALJ’s opinion and the Commission’s opinion. Id.
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 266 When the Commission denies benefits because the claimant has failed to meet his burden of proof, the substantial-evidence standard of review requires that we affirm if the Commission’s decision displays a substantial basis for the denial of relief. Moore v. Ark. State Highway & Transp. Dep’t, 2013 Ark. App. 752. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commission’s decision and affirm if it is supported by substantial evidence. Id. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Rector v. Healthsouth, 2014 Ark. App. 135. 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. Williams v. Baldor Elec. Co., 2014 Ark. App. 62. We defer to the Commission’s findings of credibility and the resolution of conflicting evidence. Moore, supra. We may issue memorandum opinions 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 (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. In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985). This case falls within categories (a) and (b). The only substantial question on appeal is whether the Commission’s opinion was supported by sufficient evidence. A review of the 2
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 266 record reflects that it was. Further, the opinion of the ALJ, adopted by the Commission, adequately explained the decision reached. Accordingly, we affirm by memorandum opinion. WYNNE and VAUGHT, JJ., agree. Lane, Muse, Arman & Pullen, by: Shannon Muse Carroll; and Mark Ledbetter, for appellant. Worley, Wood & Parrish, P.A., by: Melissa Wood, for appellees. 3
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.