 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smith v. Howard County Children's Center6/1/2005
s referring to, what an `HIZ' is, what its significance is, and what its relationship to the injury is," was insufficient to overcome appellant's burden of proof regarding her alleged injury.
Appellant now attempts to introduce evidence into the record that was not introduced at the first hearing, which is contradictory to the requirement of Ark. Code Ann. ยง 11-9-705 that all evidence be presented to the Commission at the initial hearing on a controverted claim. There was no evidence produced to explain the single reference to an "HIZ" in Dr. Saer's report prior to appellant's lengthy explanation in her brief to this court. Likewise, no diagnostic test that was performed correlates any objective medical finding to Dr. Saer's diagnosis of a sprain or strain. Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-102(5)(D) requires that a compensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by objective findings.
Dr. Floyd, who had treated appellant for ten years prior to the accident, stated in his July 17, 2003 report that appellant had been treated for chronic back pain over the past year or two. He determined that appellant's symptoms were specifically related to her weight problem, which predated the April 9, 2003 accident. His opinion was that the accident was not a significant event that would cause her long-term problems.
We find no error in the Commission's finding that appellant did not sustain a compensable injury on April 9, 2003. Appellant insisted that it was her coccyx that was injured, yet she failed to provide any proof of objective medical findings from the record to support that claim. The determination of the credibility and the weight to be given a witness's testimony are within the sole province of the Commission. Smith v. City of Fort Smith, supra. It is well settled that the Commission has the authority to accept or reject medical opinion and the authority to determine its medical soundness and probative force. Williams v. Brown's Sheet Metal, 81 Ark. App. 459, 105 S.W.3d 382 (2003). It was for the Commission to resolve any conflicting medical evidence, and this court will not disturb its findings regarding issues of credibility. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stotts, 74 Ark. App. 428, 49 S.W.3d 667 (2001).
The Commission has a duty to use its experience and expertise in translating the testimony of medical experts into findings of fact. Williams v. Brown's Sheet Metal, supra. It is the responsibility of the Commission to draw inferences when the testimony is open to more than a single interpretation, whether controverted or uncontroverted; and when it does so, its findings have the force and effect of a jury verdict. Id. The mere fact that the Commission afforded greater weight to Dr. Floyd's diagnosis than Dr. Saer's in this matter does not constitute grounds for reversal. In short, the Commission's opinion displays a substantial basis for denying appellant's claim. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
Roaf, J., agrees.
HArt, J., concurs.
|