Five Rivers Med. Ctr. v. Freeman (Majority)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 532 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CA11-35 Opinion Delivered FIVE RIVERS MEDICAL CENTER & RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES APPELLANTS V. September 14, 2011 APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION [F907043] DANIEL FREEMAN APPELLEE AFFIRMED DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge The Arkansas Workers Compensation Commission affirmed and adopted the ALJ s decision that appellee Daniel Freeman suffered a compensable back injury while performing employment services for appellant Five Rivers Medical Center. The Commission awarded him temporary-total, temporary-partial disability, and medical benefits. Five Rivers appeals that decision, contending that Freeman failed to establish that he sustained a compensable injury within the course and scope of his employment. 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; Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 532 (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. This case falls within categories (a) and (b). The only substantial question presented in this appeal involves the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the Commission s decision, and the Commission s opinion adequately explains its decision, which we are affirming. Affirmed. V AUGHT, C.J., and H ART, J., 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.