Fred Cain v. Fort Smith Office Supply

DIVISION II

WENDELL L. GRIFFEN, JUDGE

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

CA00-549

December 6, 2000

FRED CAIN AN APPEAL FROM ARKANSAS

APPELLANT WORKERS' COMPENSATION

COMMISSION [E904429]

V.

FORT SMITH OFFICE SUPPLY

APPELLEE AFFIRMED

Fred Cain appeals the decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission, which found that Cain failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a compensable injury to his left shoulder. Cain argues on appeal that the decision by the Commission is not supported by substantial evidence. A review of the evidence in a lightmost favorable to the findings of the Commission supports the Commission's decision. Therefore, we affirm.

When considering whether the evidence is sufficient to support the Commission's conclusion, we review all evidence and reasonable inferences in a light most favorable toward the Commission's findings. See Ester v. Nat'l. Home Ctrs., Inc., 335 Ark. 356, 981 S.W.2d 91 (1998). We will affirm a decision reached by the Commission when the decision is supported by substantial evidence. See id., 981 S.W.2d 91. Substantial evidence exists when reasonable minds viewing the same facts could reach the same conclusion as the Commission. See id., 981 S.W.2d 91. We will not reverse a decision unless we are convinced that fair-minded persons, presented with the same evidence as before the Commission, could not have reached the conclusion drawn by the Commission. See id., 981 S.W.2d 91. The critical issue is not whether we may have reached a different conclusion or whether the evidence supports a contrary finding. See Barnett v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co., 62 Ark. App. 265, 970 S.W.2d 319 (1998). Instead, the issue is whether reasonable minds could arrive at the Commission's conclusion. See id. at 268, 970 S.W.2d 319. When this occurs, we affirm. See id., 970 S.W.2d 319. In conducting our review, we recognize that issues pertaining to witness credibility and the weight to give witness testimony lie within the exclusive province of the Commission. See American Greetings Corp. v. Garey, 61 Ark. App. 18, 963 S.W.2d 613 (1998).

A compensable injury is defined statutorily as "an accidental injury causing internal or external physical injury to the body, . . . arising out of and in the course of employmentand which requires medical services or results in disability or death. An injury is `accidental' only if it is caused by a specific incident and is identifiable by time and place of occurrence." See Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(I) (Supp. 1999).

In this case, the Commission adopted as its own the opinion of the administrative law judge. From our review of the record, we conclude that the Commission's opinion adequately explains the Commission's findings of fact and that there was substantial evidence in the record that could have convinced a fair minded person to conclude that appellant failed to prove that he suffered a compensable injury to his left shoulder while in the employ of appellee. Therefore, we affirm the Commission's decision by this memorandum opinion pursuant to sections (a) and (b) of In re: Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985).

Affirmed.

Pittman and Roaf, JJ., agree.