Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 277 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CV-15-987 O PINION DELIVERED MAY 25, 2016 MAC WESTMORELAND APPELLANT V. APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION MENA PUBLIC SCHOOLS; COMMISSION ARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS [NO. G202898] ASSOCIATION; DEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY TRUST FUND APPELLEES AFFIRMED ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Chief Judge Appellant Mac Westmoreland appeals the October 26, 2015 opinion of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission that affirmed and adopted the April 8, 2015 opinion of the Administrative Law Judge, which denied appellant’s request for additional medical treatment for his back and neck injuries and temporary-total-disability benefits associated with his right shoulder injury that occurred on April 3, 2012. Appellant argues that the decision of the Commission is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm. We review a decision of the Commission to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support it. Queen v. Nortel Networks, 2013 Ark. App. 523. We review the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commission’s findings. Id. It is the Commission’s province to weigh the evidence and determine what is most credible. Id. The issue on appeal is not whether we would have
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 277 reached a different result or whether the evidence would have supported a contrary conclusion; we will affirm if reasonable minds could reach the Commission’s conclusion. Id. It is the Commission’s duty, not ours, to make credibility determinations, to weigh the evidence, and to resolve conflicts in the medical opinions, evidence, and testimony. Adams v. Bemis Co., Inc., 2010 Ark. App. 859, at 2. Where the Commission has denied a claim because of the claimant’s failure to meet his or her burden of proof, the substantial-evidence standard of review requires that we affirm if the Commission’s opinion displays a substantial basis for the denial of relief. Bolus v. Jack Cecil Hardware, 2013 Ark. App. 288. Because this is the sole issue now before us, and because the Commission’s opinion adequately explains the decision, we affirm by memorandum opinion. In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985) (per curiam). Affirmed. K INARD and GRUBER, JJ., agree. Orvin W. Foster, for appellant. Worley, Wood & Parrish, P.A., by: Melissa Wood, 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.