Dorothy J. Johnson v. City of Little Rock and Risk Management Resources
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Not Designated for Publication
DIVISION I
CA07-00061
DOROTHY J. JOHNSON
SEPTEMBER 12, 2007
APPELLANT
v.
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK RISK
MANAGEMENT RESOURCES
APPELLEE
A P P E A L
F R O M
T H E
WORKERS’COMPENSATION
COMMISSION
[F508011]
AFFIRMED
Appellant Dorothy Johnson appeals from a decision by the Workers’ Compensation
Commission, finding that appellant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she
remained within her healing period, symptomatic and in need of continued medical treatment
relative to her June 21, 2005, injury, subsequent to July 12, 2005, and that all medical treatment
appellant received after July 12, 2005, was reasonable and necessary. 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 temporary total disability or temporary partial disability for the periods requested and the
Commission’s denial of additional medical treatment. 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.
