DANIEL v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., 2014 Ark.App. 671 (2014)
Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
Number: inarco20141203016
Visitors: 3
Filed: Dec. 03, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 03, 2014
Summary: BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge. Earnest Daniel appeals the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission's decision that she did not sufficiently prove that she sustained a compensable back injury. She essentially argues that the Commission erred in finding her not credible and in disregarding medical evidence that she says documents a workplace injury. We affirm. The arguments advanced by Daniel challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. These arguments are based entirely on matters of weight and cre
Summary: BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge. Earnest Daniel appeals the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission's decision that she did not sufficiently prove that she sustained a compensable back injury. She essentially argues that the Commission erred in finding her not credible and in disregarding medical evidence that she says documents a workplace injury. We affirm. The arguments advanced by Daniel challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. These arguments are based entirely on matters of weight and cred..
More
BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge.
Earnest Daniel appeals the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission's decision that she did not sufficiently prove that she sustained a compensable back injury. She essentially argues that the Commission erred in finding her not credible and in disregarding medical evidence that she says documents a workplace injury. We affirm.
The arguments advanced by Daniel challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. These arguments are based entirely on matters of weight and credibility, which rest solely with the Commission. See St. Edward Mercy Med. Ctr. v. Warnock, 2013 Ark.App. 518, 429 S.W.3d 348. Because the only substantial question involved in the appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence, and because the Commission's opinion adequately explains the decision, we affirm by memorandum opinion pursuant to sections (a) and (b) of our per curiam In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark.App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985).
Affirmed.
HIXSON and WOOD, JJ., agree.
Source: Leagle
