C. Bean Transport, Inc. and Compensation Managers v. William Justice
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No.
CA07-1258
C. BEAN TRANSPORT, INC. and
COMPENSATION MANAGERS,
APPELLANTS
Opinion Delivered
4 June 2008
v.
APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’
COMPENSATION COMMISSION
[NO. F606928]
WILLIAM JUSTICE,
AFFIRMED
APPELLEE
D.P. MARSHALL JR., Judge
William Justice drove a truck for C. Bean Transport, Inc. He fell and hurt his
head, knee, and shoulder while he was at a customer’s scale house on one of his routes.
After he fell, Justice continued to drive part of his route but he soon had to stop and
go to the doctor because of his shoulder pain.
The Workers’ Compensation
Commission adopted the ALJ’s decision awarding Justice benefits and attorneys’ fees.
C. Bean appeals the sufficiency of the evidence supporting that award.
The Commission based its decision on the credibility of the witness’s testimony
and the medical evidence presented at the hearing. Justice testified that he did not have
shoulder pain before he fell, but afterwards he was in too much pain to drive the rest
of his route. A post-fall MRI showed a tear in Justice’s rotator cuff. Dr. David
Sudbrink’s medical report stated that, while Justice may have had some chronic
shoulder problems, they were exacerbated by his fall at the scale house.
C. Bean argues that Justice’s pain was the result of his past shoulder problems,
not a new injury at work. Dr. Sudbrink’s statement about this possibility was before
the Commission. And an aggravation of a pre-existing condition is compensable.
Parker v. Atlantic Research Corp., 87 Ark. App. 145, 152, 189 S.W.3d 449, 453 (2004).
We defer to the Commission’s evaluation of Dr. Sudbrink’s report because the
Commission has the exclusive function of determining the witnesses’ credibility and
the weight of all the evidence. Smith-Blair, Inc. v. Jones, 77 Ark. App. 273, 279–80, 72
S.W.3d 560, 565 (2002). Justice’s testimony, which the ALJ found credible, and the
medical evidence, provide substantial evidence to support the Commission’s award of
benefits. Smith-Blair, 77 Ark. App. at 276–77, 72 S.W.3d at 563.
Affirmed.
HART and GLADWIN, JJ., agree.
-22
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.
