Marquez v. Pipelife Jet Stream (Majority)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 651 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CV-15-535 FELIPE MARQUEZ Opinion Delivered November 12, 2015 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION [NO. G104699] V. PIPELIFE JET STREAM, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, and DEATH AND PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY TRUST FUND APPELLEES AFFIRMED PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge Felipe Marquez appeals from a decision of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (“Commission”) finding that he failed to prove his entitlement to permanent total disability benefits or, in the alternative, that he was entitled to permanent partial disability benefits in excess of his 15% permanent physical impairment rating.1 On appeal, Marquez argues that the Commission’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Having reviewed the evidence presented, we disagree and affirm by issuing this memorandum opinion. 1 The Commission affirmed and adopted the opinion of the administrative law judge (ALJ). Typically, on appeal to our court, we review only the decision of the Commission, not that of the ALJ. Queen v. Nortel Networks, Inc., 2012 Ark. App. 188, at 3. When, however, the Commission affirms and adopts the ALJ’s opinion, thereby making the findings and conclusions of the ALJ the Commission’s findings and conclusions, our court considers both the ALJ’s opinion and the Commission’s opinion. Id. Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 651 We may issue memorandum opinions 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. In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985). This case falls within categories (a) and (b). The only substantial question on appeal is whether the Commission’s opinion was supported by sufficient evidence. A review of the record reflects that it was. Further, the opinion of the ALJ, adopted by the Commission, adequately explained the decision reached. Accordingly, we affirm by memorandum opinion. Affirmed. GLOVER and BROWN, JJ., agree. Tolley & Brooks, P.A., by: Evelyn E. Brooks, for appellant. Bassett Law Firm LLP, by: Tod C. Bassett, for appellee. 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.