Bella Vista POA v. Troy Hamilton

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

DIVISION I

BELLA VISTA POA

APPELLANT

V.

TROY HAMILTON

APPELLEE

CA04-757

February 9, 2005

APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION [NO. E714922]

AFFIRMED

John Mauzy Pittman, Chief Judge

The appellee was employed by appellant Bella Vista POA as a firefighter/paramedic when he sustained a compensable back injury in October 1997. Appellee filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits and, after a hearing, the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission found that he sustained a thirteen percent permanent physical impairment to the body as a whole, and that he was, in addition, entitled to twenty-five percent permanent partial disability benefits for wage loss. On appeal, appellant contends that the Commission erred in finding that appellee sustained wage-loss disability in the amount of twenty-five percent. In essence, it argues that, had the Commission assigned proper weight to the evidence before it and drawn the correct inferences, it would have found that appellee simply lacked motivation to return to the workforce, and that the evidence is therefore insufficient to sustain the Commission's findings. We affirm.

Questions concerning the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony are within the exclusive province of the Commission. Arkansas Department of Health v. Williams, 43 Ark. App. 169, 863 S.W.2d 583 (1993). 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). The question is not whether the evidence would have supported findings contrary to the ones made by the Commission; there may be substantial evidence to support the Commission's decision even though we might have reached a different conclusion if we sat as the trier of fact or heard the case de novo. CDI Contractors v. McHale, 41 Ark. App. 57, 848 S.W.2d 941 (1993). 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).

The only substantial question in this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence, and the Commission's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and opinion adequately explain the decision. Having determined that the Commission's findings are in fact supported by substantial evidence, we affirm by memorandum opinion. See In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985).

Affirmed.

Glover and Baker, JJ., agree.