Van Buren Tire Company v. Ricky Bean
Annotate this CaseARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
DIVISION II
VAN BUREN TIRE COMPANY
APPELLANT
V.
RICKY BEAN
APPELLEE
CA03-92
September 10, 2003
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
[NO. F112313]
AFFIRMED
John Mauzy Pittman, Judge
The appellant, Van Buren Tire Co., was the employer of appellee, Ricky Bean, on October 15, 2001. Appellee filed a claim for benefits asserting that he sustained a compensable back injury on that date. The Commission found that appellee had sustained a compensable back injury, and awarded medical and temporary total disability benefits. From that decision, comes this appeal.
For reversal, appellants contend that there is no substantial evidence to support the Commission's finding that appellee sustained a compensable injury on October 15, 2001. We affirm.
In reviewing decisions from the Workers' Compensation Commission, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commission's findings, and we affirm if the decision is supported by substantial evidence. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sands, 80 Ark. App. 51, 91 S.W.3d 93 (2002). Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Olsten Kimberly Quality Care v. Pettey, 328 Ark. 381, 944 S.W.2d 524 (1997). 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. White v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 339 Ark. 474, 6 S.W.3d 98 (1999).
It is undisputed in the present case that appellee has sustained a back injury. The dispute is over whether appellee sustained a noncompensable back injury by coughing at his home on October 13, 2001, or whether he sustained a compensable back injury by fixing a flat tractor tire at work. There was testimony that would support either version of these events. Appellee did present at a hospital emergency room with severe back pain on October 13, 2001. However, there was testimony which, if believed, would show that appellee recovered quickly from this incident and was able to go fishing with a friend the next day without discomfort. There was also testimony that appellee has never recovered from the work-related incident of October 15, 2001. Appellant's physician, Dr. Thompson, diagnosed appellant with a recurrent herniated disc, opined that it was highly unlikely that appellee sustained this injury while at home on October 13, and stated within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the work-related incident of October 15 was far more likely to have caused a new herniated disc.
Reduced to its essential terms, appellant's argument for reversal is simply a contention that the Commission erred in weighing the evidence and determining the credibility of the witnesses. However, 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 the claimant or any other witness, but may accept and translate into findings of fact only those portions of the testimony it deems worthy of belief. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sands, supra. 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. Id.
The only question in the present case is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence based on the assertion that the Commission erred in its determination of credibility; the Commission's opinion contains a detailed discussion of its findings of credibility and its reasons for making those findings; and our decision is clearly controlled by the many cases holding that matters of weight and credibility are within the exclusive province of the Commission. We therefore affirm by memorandum opinion. In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985).
Affirmed.
Gladwin and Baker, JJ., agree.
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.