 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smith v. Howard County Children's Center6/1/2005
on affirmed and adopted the ALJ's decision without further discussion. This appeal followed.
Typically, on appeal to this court, we review only the decision of the Commission, not that of the ALJ. Daniels v. Affiliated Foods S. W., 70 Ark. App. 319, 17 S.W.3d 817 (2000). In this particular case, the Commission affirmed and adopted the ALJ's opinion as its own. Under Arkansas law, the Commission is permitted to adopt the ALJ's decision. See Death & Permanent Total Disability Trust Fund v. Branum, 82 Ark. App. 338, 107 S.W.3d 876 (2003) (citing Odom v. TOSCO Corp., 12 Ark. App. 196, 672 S.W.2d 915 (1984)). Moreover, in so doing, the Commission makes the ALJ's findings and conclusions the findings and conclusions of the Commission. See Branum, supra. Therefore, for purposes of our review, we consider both the ALJ's order and the Commission's majority order.
In reviewing decisions from the Workers' Compensation Commission, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commission's findings, and we affirm if the decision is supported by substantial evidence. Swearengin v. Evergreen Lawns, 85 Ark. App. 61, 145 S.W.3d 830 (2004). Substantial evidence exists if reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion. Id. When a claim is denied because the claimant has failed to show an entitlement to compensation by a preponderance of the evidence, the substantial-evidence standard of review requires us to affirm if the Commission's opinion displays a substantial basis for the denial of relief. Id. The issue is not whether this court might have reached a different result from that reached by the Commission, or whether the evidence would have supported a contrary finding. Smith v. County Market/Southeast Foods, 73 Ark. App. 333, 44 S.W.3d 737 (2001). We will not reverse the Commission's decision unless we are convinced that fair-minded persons with the same facts before them could not have reached the conclusions arrived at by the Commission. Id.
As the claimant, appellant had the burden of proving a compensable injury by a preponderance of the evidence. Smith v. City of Fort Smith, 84 Ark. App. 430, 143 S.W.3d 593 (2004). She attempts to have the Commission's opinion reversed based solely on the report of Dr. Saer that attributed her medical condition to the April 9, 2003 accident. The reference in Dr. Saer's report to an "HIZ" was not explained by any of the evidence presented to the ALJ. The record contains various diagnostic tests that were performed on appellant, including the two MRI reports taken before and after the incident that demonstrated similar findings. While appellant argues that there was no evidence that contradicted Dr. Saer's report, the medical reports which she references fail to explain or support Dr. Saer's conclusory comment regarding the existence of an "HIZ" after his sole examination.
The ALJ specifically addressed Dr. Saer's comment regarding an "HIZ" in his opinion, noting that there was some medical literature available regarding what is known as a "High Intensity Zone" but that nothing explanatory was introduced into evidence in this matter. The ALJ explained that he was unable to locate related material sufficient to enable him to take judicial notice of the concept. The ALJ referenced Dr. Saer's opinion that objective findings did exist to support appellant's claim and acknowledged that the Commission may not arbitrarily disregard medical testimony. See K II Constr. Co. v. Crabtree, 78 Ark. App. 222, 79 S.W.3d 414 (2002). However, the ALJ, and later the Commission, determined that Dr. Saer's conclusory statement, without further explanation or means of evaluating "what objective finding he i
Page 1 2 3 Arkansas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|