Prock v. Bull Shoals Landing
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 724
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
CA09-1320
No.
Opinion Delivered
November 3, 2010
GREG PROCK
APPELLANT
V.
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSION [NO. F711607]
BULL SHOALS LANDING
APPELLEE
REVERSED AND REMANDED
JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Judge
This is an appeal from an opinion of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation
Commission. The claimant-appellant was injured at work while opening fifty-five-gallon
drums with a welding torch. He was denied benefits based on a finding that he tested positive
for controlled substances after the injury and failed to rebut the statutory presumption that his
injury was occasioned by his drug use. Appellant argues that the Commission’s findings are
not supported by substantial evidence, that Commission lacked the authority to make
credibility determinations contrary to those made by the administrative law judge, and that
the procedure by which Commissioners are selected results in an unconstitutional bias against
claimants. We cannot reach the merits of the arguments at this time because the Commission’s
opinion is defective.
It is the Commission’s duty to find the facts, and, when sufficient findings of essential
facts are lacking, we are unable to perform any meaningful review of the Commission’s
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 724
decision. Wright v. American Transportation, 18 Ark. App. 18, 709 S.W.2d 107 (1986). A
satisfactory finding of fact is one that permits the appellate court to decide whether the
Commission has resolved the issues in accordance with the law. Id. We are unable to do so
in this case.
The Commission stated in its opinion that “[t]he only evidence in this case to rebut
the presumption is the claimant and Mr. Edminston’s denial of smoking marijuana.”
However, the record shows that there was, in fact, other evidence offered to rebut the
presumption, i.e., the testimony of two other witnesses that they observed appellant on the
morning of the accident and that he was not impaired. Because the Commission stated that
no such evidence existed, we are unable to say whether the testimony of these witnesses was
disbelieved, overlooked, or disregarded arbitrarily. It is reversible error for the Commission
to state that there is “no evidence” on an issue when such evidence in fact appears in the
record. Edens v. Superior Marble & Glass, 346 Ark. 487, 58 S.W.3d 369 (2001). Consequently,
we reverse and remand for the Commission to make findings of fact that are sufficiently
detailed and specific to permit meaningful judicial review.
Reversed and remanded.
H ART, J., agrees.
V AUGHT, C.J., concurs.
-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.
