Patton v. Jim Smith Collision
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 421
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CA09-1123
Opinion Delivered
May 12, 2010
KEVIN PATTON
APPELLANT
V.
JIM SMITH COLLISION & WRECKER,
ACE PROPERTY & CASUALTY
INSURANCE, and SECOND INJURY
FUND
APPELLEES
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSION [F708980]
AFFIRMED
DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge
In this workers’ compensation case, the administrative law judge, in a very detailed
and well-reasoned opinion, determined that appellant, Kevin Patton, failed to establish
that on July 26, 2007, he sustained either a compensable specific-incident or gradual-onset
back injury.1 The Commission affirmed and adopted the ALJ’s opinion. Patton appeals,
arguing that the Commission’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence.
His
argument before us is that the Commission erred in finding that his injury was not the
major cause for treatment.
Substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decision;
therefore, we affirm.
1
Patton argues on appeal to this court only that the Commission erred in not
finding that he suffered a gradual-onset back injury.
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 421
When reviewing a decision of the Commission, this court views the evidence and
all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the
Commission’s findings and affirms the decision if it is supported by substantial evidence.
Finley v. Farm Cat, Inc., 103 Ark. App. 292, 288 S.W.3d 685 (2008). The issue is not
whether we might have reached a different result or whether the evidence would have
supported a contrary finding; if reasonable minds could reach the Commission’s
conclusion, we must affirm. Id. Where the Commission denies benefits because the
claimant has failed to meet his burden of proof, the substantial-evidence standard of review
requires us to affirm if the Commission’s decision displays a substantial basis for the denial
of relief. Parson v. Arkansas Methodist Hosp., 103 Ark. App. 178, 287 S.W.3d 645 (2008).
A substantial basis exists if fair-minded persons could reach the same conclusion when
considering the same facts. Id.
Questions concerning witness credibility and the weight to be given to witness
testimony are within the Commission’s exclusive province. Cedar Chem. Co. v. Knight,
372 Ark. 233, 273 S.W.3d 473 (2008). When evidence is contradictory, it is within the
Commission’s province to reconcile conflicting evidence and to determine the true facts.
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; this court is foreclosed from determining the
credibility and weight to be accorded to each witness’s testimony. Id.
-2-
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 421
To prove a gradual-onset injury, an employee must prove that the injury arose out
of and in the course of his employment; that the injury caused internal or external physical
harm to the body that required medical services; and that the injury was the major cause of
the need for treatment. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Leach, 74 Ark. App. 231, 48 S.W.3d 540
(2001).
Here, the only question on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence. Because the
Commission’s opinion adequately explains its decision, we affirm by memorandum
opinion. In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985).
Affirmed.
V AUGHT, C.J., and G RUBER, J., agree.
-3-
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.
