 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Caves v. Riverside Furniture Corp.8/30/2000
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
AFFIRMED
The appellant in this workers' compensation case filed a claim for benefits alleging that he sustained a compensable injury while lifting large sheet-metal panels in the course of his employment with appellee.
The Administrative Law Judge found that appellant sustained a compensable gradual-onset injury and awarded benefits. On appeal to the Commission, the Commission found that appellant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a compensable injury.
This appeal followed.
For reversal, appellant contends that the Commission's opinion is not supported by substantial evidence; that the Commission erred as a matter of law in failing to find that appellant sustained an injury identifiable by specific time and place; and that the Commission erred as a matter of law in failing to credit the ALJ's findings as to the credibility of the witnesses. We affirm.
We first address appellant's contention that the Commission's findings are not supported by the evidence. Our standard of review is well-settled:
On appeal in workers' compensation cases, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commission's findings and will affirm if those findings are supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The issue on appeal is not whether we might have reached a different result or whether the evidence would have supported a contrary finding; if reasonable minds could reach the Commission's conclusion, we must affirm its decision. Where a claim is denied, the substantial evidence standard of review requires us to affirm the Commission if its opinion displays a substantial basis for the denial of the relief sought. Jeter v. B.R. McGinty Mechanical, 62 Ark. App. 53, 55-56, 968 S.W.2d 645, 647-48 (1998) (citations omitted).
Appellant argues under this point that the record does not bear out the Commission's finding that appellant had a long prior history of chronic back pain. This argument is without merit. Appellant himself admitted that his back problems extended back fourteen or fifteen years; additionally, there was evidence of several recorded emergency-room treatments for back trouble and that appellant was diagnosed with chronic back pain in 1992. We hold that this constitutes substantial evidence to support the Commission's finding.
Next, appellant appears to argue that the Commission erred by failing to consider whether or not appellant's alleged injury was compensable as arising out of a specific incident. This argument is not well-taken because the Commission did in fact make a finding on this issue, stating specifically in its opinion that " ven though the claimant alleged a gradual onset injury, we further find that claimant has failed to prove a specific incident injury as well."
Finally, appellant argues that the Commission erred in failing to credit the Administrative Law Judge's credibility findings. This argument lacks merit because, first, there is no indication in the record that the Commission's decision was based on differing views regarding credibility, as opposed to differing inferences drawn from the evidence, and second, because appellant neither objected nor obtained a ruling on this point and cannot raise it for the first time on appeal. Johnson v. Hux, 28 Ark. App. 187, 772 S.W.2d 362 (1989).
Affirmed.
Jennings and Crabtree, JJ., agree.
|