Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 50 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CA10-765 ST. MARY – ROGERS MEMORIAL Opinion Delivered January 26, 2011 HOSPITAL APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION V. COMMISSION [NO. F800254] KAREN HENDERSON APPELLEE AFFIRMED JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Judge Appellee sustained an admittedly compensable injury when she fell while carrying out her duties as an intensive-care nurse in the employ of appellant hospital. After a hearing, the administrative law judge found that appellee had sustained an anatomical impairment of three percent and wage-loss disability of twenty-five percent, and awarded her permanent partial disability benefits of twenty-eight percent. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission affirmed and adopted as its own the administrative law judge’s findings and opinion. On appeal, appellant asserts that the Commission’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm. In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support decisions of the Commission, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commission’s findings and affirm if they are supported by substantial
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 50 evidence, i.e., evidence that a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Dotson v. Little Rock National Airport, 2009 Ark. App. 820. We will not reverse the Commission’s decision unless we are convinced that fair-minded persons with the same facts before them could not have reached the conclusions arrived at by the Commission. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sands, 80 Ark. App. 51, 91 S.W.3d 93 (2002). Appellant argues that the evidence is insubstantial because there was contrary medical evidence as to the extent of disability and because the Commission drew the wrong inferences from the evidence regarding wage-loss factors. These arguments are irrelevant to a determination of evidentiary sufficiency and are merely matters of weight and credibility that are entirely within the purview of the Commission. Gaither Appliance v. Stewart, 103 Ark. App. 276, 284 S.W.3d 57 (2008). Clearly, the medical-opinion evidence relied upon by the Commission in this case, though disputed, was substantial evidence to support the finding of the degree of anatomical disability. The opinion of appellant’s treating physician was afforded greater weight than the opinion of a physician whose testimony was based on a records review. When the Commission, as here, chooses to credit the testimony of one physician over that of another, we are powerless to reverse the Commission’s findings. Henson v. Club Products, 22 Ark. App. 136, 736 S.W.2d 290 (1987). The evidence supporting the assignment of wage loss was likewise clearly substantial. Appellant was fifty-six years of age and under medical restrictions that prevented her from returning to nursing. Given her physical limitations, she was currently employed by appellant as a charge capture analyst, earning $9.00 -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.