St. Edward Mercy Med. Ctr. v. Wilson

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 679 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CA11-464 ST. EDWARD MERCY MEDICAL CENTER and SISTERS OF MERCY HEALTH SYSTEM APPELLANTS Opinion Delivered November 9, 2011 V. APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION [NO. F601643] CASSANDRA RICHARDS WILSON APPELLEE AFFIRMED ROBIN F. WYNNE, Judge Appellants St. Edward Mercy Medical Center and Sisters of Mercy Health System appeal from an opinion of the Arkansas Workers Compensation Commission affirming and adopting the decision of the administrative law judge to award additional medical services to appellee Cassandra Wilson. Appellants contend that appellee s current condition did not result from her compensable injury or, in the alternative, that Wilson s symptoms are a result of a pre-existing condition. We find no error and issue this memorandum opinion affirming the Commission s decision. 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. 679 (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. at 302, 700 S.W.2d at 63. This case falls within categories (a) and (b). The only substantial question on appeal is whether the Commission s decision was supported by sufficient evidence. Commission s opinion, which we affirm, adequately explains its decision. Affirmed. ROBBINS and GLOVER, JJ., agree. 2 The

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.