Supersaver Wholesale Warehouse v. Sherry M. Kivo

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, JUDGE

DIVISION II

SUPERSAVER WHOLESALE WAREHOUSE

APPELLANT

V.

SHERRY M. KIVO

APPELLEE

CA02-237

December 23, 2002

APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION [NO. D611220]

AFFIRMED

The appellee in this workers' compensation case was employed by appellant Supersaver Wholesale Warehouse on August 1, 1986, when she sustained a compensable injury to her right shoulder. She was treated for her shoulder injury and for depression. She filed a claim for benefits alleging that she was permanently and totally disabled, and seeking additional psychiatric treatment. After a hearing, the Commission found that appellee had developed chronic, major depression as a direct result of her compensable injury; that appellee was entitled to continued psychiatric treatment for her depression; and that appellee's shoulder injury and depression combined to render her permanently and totally disabled. From that decision, comes this appeal.

For reversal, appellant contends that there is no substantial evidence to support the Commission's findings that appellee is permanently and totally disabled, and that appellee is entitled to psychiatric treatment. We affirm.

In reviewing a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the findings of the Commission and affirm that decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. Howell v. Scroll Technologies, 343 Ark. 297, 35 S.W.3d 800 (2001). The issue on appeal is not whether we might have reached a different result or whether the evidence would have supported a contrary finding; if reasonable minds could reach the Commission's conclusion, we must affirm the Commission's decision. Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, 71 Ark. App. 207, 29 S.W.3d 751 (2000).

The appellant does not directly challenge the rational or legal underpinnings of the Commission's order as set forth in its thirty-eight page opinion in this case, but instead draws our attention to certain items of evidence adduced at the hearing and invites us to draw therefrom conclusions different from those reached by the Commission. All of appellant's arguments on appeal are directed to the weight and credibility of the evidence relied upon by the Commission. However, it is well-established that the determination of the credibility and weight to be given a witness's testimony is within the sole province of the Workers' Compensation Commission; the Commission is not required to believe the testimony of any witness, but may accept and translate into findings of fact only those portions of the testimony it deems worthy of belief. Farmers Cooperative v. Biles, 77 Ark. App. 1, 69 S.W.3d 899 (2002). The Commission has the duty of weighing the medical evidence as it does any other evidence, and its resolution of the medical evidence has the force and effect of a jury verdict. Continental Express v. Harris, 61 Ark. App. 198, 965 S.W.2d 811 (1998). In the present case, the Commission chose to believe certain evidence over other evidence; it drew reasonable conclusions from that evidence; and it explained those findings and conclusions in an extensive and well-written opinion. The facts found by the Commission were properly based on evidence before it and support the award, and we hold that the Commission's opinion is supported by substantial evidence.

Affirmed.

Hart and Bird, JJ., agree.