Dana Hicks v. Antique Warehouse of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CA08-110
DANA HICKS
Opinion Delivered
October 22, 2008
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSION [NO. F509313]
V.
ANTIQUE WAREHOUSE OF
ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Chief Judge
Appellant filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits asserting that he sustained
a compensable injury while in the employ of appellee in August 2005. After a hearing, the
Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission found that appellant had in fact sustained a
compensable injury and that he was entitled to temporary-total disability benefits for the
period between August 19 and September 2, 2005. On appeal, appellant argues that the
Commission erred in finding that he was not entitled to temporary-total disability benefits
through a date yet to be determined. We affirm.
Our standard of review is well settled: 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. American Greetings Corp. v.
Garey, 61 Ark. App. 18, 963 S.W.2d 613 (1998). Substantial evidence is such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. The
determination of the credibility and weight to be given a witness’s testimony is within the sole
province of the Commission. Id. The Commission is not required to believe the testimony
of the claimant or any other witness, but may accept and translate into findings of fact only
those portions of the testimony that it deems worthy of belief. Id.
In finding that appellant’s healing period ended on September 2, 2005, the
Commission relied on evidence that appellant’s treating physician released him to return to
work without restrictions or impairment on that date, and on testimony from two of
appellee’s supervisory personnel that appropriate light duty was available for appellant. These
findings are supported by the record, and the testimony was expressly found to be credible.
Temporary-total disability is that period within the healing period in which the employee
suffers a total incapacity to earn wages, Arkansas State Highway Department v. Breshears, 272
Ark. 244, 613 S.W.2d 392 (1981), and because the above-recited evidence is a sufficient basis
for concluding that appellant was not totally incapacitated to earn wages after September 2,
2005, we affirm.
Affirmed.
B AKER and H UNT, JJ., agree.
-2-
CA08-110
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.
