Feltus v. Maverick Tube, LLC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 837
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CA10-769
Opinion Delivered
December 15, 2010
CARL E. FELTUS
APPELLANT
V.
MAVERICK TUBE, LLC and
CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICES
APPELLEES
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSION
[No. F902129]
AFFIRMED
LARRY D. VAUGHT, Chief Judge
Appellant Carl Feltus appeals from a decision of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation
Commission denying and dismissing his claim for benefits following an alleged gradual-onset,
carpal-tunnel injury incurred as a result of “repetitive hammering” during his employment with
appellee Maverick Tube Corporation. Specifically, Feltus argues that the Commission’s opinion
was not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm by memorandum opinion. See In re
Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985).
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
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 837
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.
This case falls squarely within category (b). The Commission authored a well-reasoned
opinion, and the record contains a substantial quantum of evidence to support the denial of
benefits. We are particularly satisfied with the Commission’s reasoning that if one considers “the
fact that [Feltus] was terminated by [Maverick] and did not report any problems until five
months after the termination, even though he testified to the fact that he was having problems
while working for [Maverick], we cannot conclude his problems are work related.”
We therefore affirm by memorandum opinion pursuant to section (b) of our per curiam,
In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985).
Affirmed.
H ART and G LOVER, 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.
