Lawson v. Pratt & Whitney (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 188 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CV-15-947 OPINION DELIVERED APRIL 6, 2016 MICHELLE LAWSON APPELLANT V. PRATT & WHITNEY; AIG CLAIMS APPELLEES APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION [NO. G302843] AFFIRMED ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Chief Judge Appellant Michelle Lawson appeals the July 13, 2015 opinion of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (“Commission”) that affirmed and adopted the February 2, 2015 opinion of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The ALJ found that Lawson failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to additional medical treatment/pain management or payment for medications from Dr. Karl Haws for her March 18, 2013 compensable lumbar injury. Lawson argues that the Commission’s opinion is not supported by substantial evidence. Having reviewed the evidence presented, we disagree and affirm by issuing this memorandum opinion. 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; Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 188 (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. HARRISON and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree. Tolley & Brooks, P.A., by: Evelyn E. Brooks, for appellant. Worley, Wood & Parrish, P.A., by: Jarrod S. Parrish, 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.
