 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Marshall v. Bassett Upholstery Div.9/26/2001
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
AFFIRMED
Mamie Marshall appeals from an order of the Worker's Compensation Commission in which the Commission found that she failed to prove that her head injury was compensable. She argues that the Commission's order is not supported by substantial evidence. We hold that the record displays a substantial basis for denial of relief. Therefore, we affirm the Commission's order.
Appellant was employed by appellee Bassett Upholstery as an upholstery spreader and cutter. On December 30, 1998, she fell while performing her job duties and struck the right side of her body on a concrete floor. She suffered a broken hip and received temporary total disability benefits for this injury through April 7, 1999, when she returned to light-duty work. She later asserted that she also suffered from severe headaches and blurred vision due to a head injury sustained in the fall. Eventually, she quit working. It is the compensability of appellant's head injuries that is at issue in this case.
A hearing on this matter was held before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The ALJ found that appellant failed to prove that she sustained a compensable injury and noted that the medical records did not reveal a complaint associated with her alleged head injury until March 10, 1999. The Commission affirmed, finding that appellant did not establish a causal connection between her work-related fall and her head injuries.
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the manner in which the Commission weighed the medical testimony. Her arguments are based entirely on matters of the weight to be given the testimony and the credibility of witnesses, matters that lie within the sole province of the Commission. See Thompson v. Washington Reg'l Med. Ctr., 71 Ark. App. 126, 27 S.W.3d 459 (2000). Because the only substantial question involved in this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence and because the Commission's opinion adequately explains the basis for its decision, we affirm by memorandum opinion pursuant to our per curiam opinion. See In re: Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985).
Affirmed.
Stroud, C.J., and Neal, J., agree.
|