Daviel v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 671 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CV-14-566 Opinion Delivered December 3, 2014 EARNEST STEAN DANIEL APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS APPELLANT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION V. [NO. G208821] WAL-MART STORES, INC., AND CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, INC. APPELLEES AFFIRMED BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge Earnest Daniel appeals the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission’s decision that she did not sufficiently prove that she sustained a compensable back injury. She essentially argues that the Commission erred in finding her not credible and in disregarding medical evidence that she says documents a workplace injury. We affirm. The arguments advanced by Daniel challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. These arguments are based entirely on matters of weight and credibility, which rest solely with the Commission. See St. Edward Mercy Med. Ctr. v. Warnock, 2013 Ark. App. 518, 429 S.W.3d 348. Because the only substantial question involved in the appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence, and because the Commission’s opinion adequately explains the decision, we affirm by memorandum opinion pursuant to sections (a) and (b) of our per curiam In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985). 1 Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 671 Affirmed. HIXSON and WOOD, JJ., agree. Orr Willhite, PLC, by: M. Scott Willhite, for appellant. Roberts Law Firm, P.A., by: Susan M. Fowler and Emily A. Neal, for appellees. 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.
