Almatis Holdings, Inc. and AIG Claim Services v. John Vaughan

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS SARAH J. HEFFLEY, JUDGE NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION DIVISION I CA 07-1012 May 7, 2008 ALMATIS HOLDINGS, INC. and AIG CLAIM SERVICES APPELLANTS APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION [NO. F607158 ] V. JOHN VAUGHAN APPELLEE AFFIRMED Appellant, Almatis Holdings, Inc., appeals from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission affirming the administrative law judge and finding that appellee, John Vaughan, had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a compensable cervical spine injury. On appeal, appellant contends there is insufficient evidence to support the Commission’s decision. We find no error and affirm. In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of the Commission, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commission’s findings, and we will affirm if those findings are supported by substantial evidence. Farmers Coop. v. Biles, 77 Ark. App. 1, 69 S.W.3d 899 (2002). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. It is the function of the Commission to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. Searcy Indus. Laundry v. Ferren, 82 Ark. App. 69, 110 S.W.3d 306 (2003). Furthermore, the Commission has the duty of weighing medical evidence and, if the evidence is conflicting, its resolution is a question of fact for the Commission. Id. The issue is not whether this court might have reached a different result from that reached by the Commission, or whether the evidence would have supported a contrary finding. Smith v. County Market/Southeast Foods, 73 Ark. App. 333, 44 S.W.3d 737 (2001). 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. Id. The only issue in this appeal is whether substantial evidence supports the Commission’s finding that appellee proved he suffered a compensable cervical spine injury. We hold that fair-minded persons with the same facts before them could have reached the conclusions arrived at by the Commission, and the Commission’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and opinion adequately explain the decision. Specifically, we note that the Commission’s decision relies heavily on its credibility determinations regarding appellee, his supervisor, and his treating physician, and as stated previously, it is within the province of the Commission to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. Searcy, supra. 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). -2- CA 07-1012 Affirmed. HART and VAUGHT, JJ., agree. -3- CA 07-1012

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.