Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 512 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CV-16-262 OPINION DELIVERED NOVEMBER 2, 2016 WARREN J. GREEN APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS V. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL [NO. G409309] DISTRICT AND ARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION APPELLEES AFFIRMED ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Chief Judge Warren J. Green appeals the January 25, 2016 opinion of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (“Commission”) that affirmed and adopted the June 16, 2015 opinion of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and denied Green’s request for benefits by finding that he had failed to prove that he had sustained a compensable injury. Green 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. 512 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. Typically, we review only the Commission’s decision, not the ALJ’s; however, when the Commission affirms and adopts the ALJ’s opinion as its own, which is true here, we consider both the ALJ’s decision and the Commission’s opinion. J.B. Hunt Transp. Servs. Inc. v. Hollingsworth, 2016 Ark. App. 279, 497 S.W.3d 197. It is the Commission’s duty, not ours, to make credibility determinations, to weigh the evidence, and to resolve conflicts in the evidence and testimony. Adams v. Bemis Co., Inc., 2010 Ark. App. 859. Where the Commission has denied a claim because of the claimant’s failure to meet his 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 its decision, we affirm by memorandum opinion. In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985) (per curiam). Affirmed. ABRAMSON and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree. Robert T. James, P.A., by: Robert T. James, for appellant. Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, by: Guy Alton Wade and Phillip M. Brick, Jr., 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.