German Rodriquez v. Simmons Foods and S. B. Howard & Company
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
KAREN R. BAKER, JUDGE
DIVISION I
CA07-68
GERMAN RODRIQUEZ
SEPTEMBER 5, 2007
APPELLANT
v.
SIMMONS FOODS and S. B. HOWARD &
COMPANY
APPELLEES
APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’
COMPENSATION COMMISSION
[F503078]
AFFIRMED
Appellant, German Rodriquez, appeals from a decision by the Workers' Compensation
Commission, affirming the ALJ and finding that appellant failed to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence the existence of a causal relationship between his employment in January 2005 and the
difficulties he subsequently experienced with his right foot, as the result of an extensive infection.
On appeal, he argues that the decision of the full Commission is contrary to the facts and evidence
in this case. We find no error and 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). 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).
Questions concerning the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony are
within the exclusive province of the Commission. Ark. Dep't. of Health v. Williams, 43 Ark. App.
169, 863 S.W.2d 583 (1993).
The only issue in this appeal is whether sufficient evidence supports the Commission's denial
of benefits for the periods requested. 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.
ROBBINS and GLOVER , JJ., agree.
-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.
