Daniels v. Little Rock Sch. Dist
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 800
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CA10-464
Opinion Delivered
December 1, 2010
V.
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSION [F700216]
LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT &
ARKANSAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE
APPELLEES
AFFIRMED
ELIZABETH DANIELS
APPELLANT
DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge
Appellant, Elizabeth Daniels, suffered a compensable injury on December 15, 2006,
while working as a bus driver for appellee, Little Rock School District, and for which she
received benefits. However, she later sought additional medical treatment and temporarytotal disability benefits for her neck, which LRSD denied. Following a hearing, the ALJ
concluded that she had failed to establish that her herniated C4-5 disc was causally related
to the injuries she sustained when she fell from her bus on December 15, 2006, and
consequently, that she was not entitled to additional medical treatment or an additional
period of temporary-total disability. Daniels appealed to the full Commission, which
affirmed and adopted the ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. We affirm the
Commission by memorandum opinion. See In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301,
700 S.W.2d 63 (1985).
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 800
Memorandum opinions may be issued in any or all of the following cases:
(a)
Where the only substantial question involved is the sufficiency of the
evidence;
(b)
Where the opinion, or findings of fact and conclusions of law, of the trial
court or agency adequately explain the decision and we affirm;
(c)
Where the trial court or agency does not abuse its discretion and that is the
only substantial issue involved; and
(d)
Where the disposition of the appeal is clearly controlled by a prior holding
of this court or the Arkansas Supreme Court and we do not find that our
holding should be changed or that the case should be certified to the
supreme court.
Id.
This case falls within two of these categories, (a) and (b). Appellant’s sole point of
appeal challenges the Commission’s conclusion that she did not prove a causal connection
between her original injury and her subsequent need for additional treatment, including
surgery, focusing her argument as follows: “[T]he Commission disregarded the only
medical opinion discussing causation, along with all medical evidence thereto, that
substantial evidence does not support the Commission’s opinion, and therefore it must be
reversed.” To the contrary, in a well-developed, well-reasoned, and well-supported
opinion, which was affirmed and adopted by the Commission, the ALJ addressed the
medical opinion relied upon by appellant and explained why he gave it no weight. We
find that the Commission’s decision displays a substantial basis for the denial of relief and
that its opinion adequately explains its decision to deny benefits. We therefore affirm.
Affirmed.
P ITTMAN and G RUBER, JJ., agree.
-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.
