Lawson v. Mobilex USA (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 441 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CV-16-371 NICHOLAS LAWSON Opinion Delivered September 28, 2016 APPELLANT V. APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION [NO. G208057] MOBILEX USA/TRIDENT USA HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, and AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PA APPELLEES AFFIRMED PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge Appellant Nicholas Lawson appeals a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Commission (“Commission”) that reversed the opinion of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and found that Lawson had failed to meet his burden of proving a compensable lumbar injury. His sole argument on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to support the Commission’s credibility determination. Having reviewed the evidence presented, we disagree and affirm by issuing this memorandum opinion. We may issue memorandum opinions in any or all of the following cases: (a) evidence; Where the only substantial question involved is the sufficiency of the (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; Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 441 (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 squarely 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 record reflects that it was. Further, the opinion of the Commission adequately explains the decision reached. Accordingly, we affirm by memorandum opinion. Affirmed. GRUBER and HOOFMAN, JJ., agree. Gary Davis, for appellant. Worley, Wood & Parrish, P.A., by: Melissa Wood, for appellees. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
