Joan Stuard v. Hope School District and Risk Management Resources

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS  NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION  KAREN R. BAKER, JUDGE  DIVISION I  CA07­473  JOAN STUARD  DECEMBER 19, 2007  APPELLANT  v.  HOPE  SCHOOL  DISTRICT  and  RISK  MANAGEMENT RESOURCES  APPEAL  FROM  THE  WORKERS’  COMPENSATION COMMISSION  [F311958]  APPELLEES  AFFIRMED  Appellant, Joan Stuard, appeals from a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Commission  reversing the Administrative Law Judge and finding that she failed to prove by a preponderance of  the evidence that she was entitled to additional medical treatment after April 2, 2004.  On appeal,  appellant  argues  that  there is insufficient evidence to support the Commission’s finding that she  failed to prove that she was entitled to additional medical treatment after April 2, 2004.  She also  asserts that the Commission abused its discretion in considering medical opinions and evidence.  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. Wal­Mart 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 fair­minded persons with the same facts before them could not have reached the conclusions  arrived at by the Commission. White v. Georgia­Pacific 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  finding that appellant failed to prove that she was entitled to additional medical treatment and the  Commission’s determination of credibility as to the medical opinions.  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).  GLOVER  and HEFFLEY,  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.