SCHLUTERMAN v. BECKO MACHINE WORKS, 2015 Ark.App. 482 (2015)
Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
Number: inarco20150917018
Visitors: 6
Filed: Sep. 16, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 16, 2015
Summary: PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER , Judge . Appellant Dennis Schluterman appeals an Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission (Commission) decision determining that his left-hand condition was not a compensable consequence of his admittedly compensable right-hand injury. Schluterman contends that there was insufficient evidence to support this determination. The Commission's decision adequately summarizes Schluterman's testimony, the previous workers' compensation claim with respect to Schluterman's rig
Summary: PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER , Judge . Appellant Dennis Schluterman appeals an Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission (Commission) decision determining that his left-hand condition was not a compensable consequence of his admittedly compensable right-hand injury. Schluterman contends that there was insufficient evidence to support this determination. The Commission's decision adequately summarizes Schluterman's testimony, the previous workers' compensation claim with respect to Schluterman's righ..
More
PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge.
Appellant Dennis Schluterman appeals an Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission (Commission) decision determining that his left-hand condition was not a compensable consequence of his admittedly compensable right-hand injury. Schluterman contends that there was insufficient evidence to support this determination.
The Commission's decision adequately summarizes Schluterman's testimony, the previous workers' compensation claim with respect to Schluterman's right hand, and the relevant medical records. Further, the Commission exercised its duty to make determinations of credibility, weigh the evidence, and resolve any conflicts in the testimony and evidence. Ark. Methodist Med. Ctr. v. Blansett, 2013 Ark.App. 480. Because the only issue on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence and because the opinion of the Commission thoroughly explains its decision, we affirm by memorandum opinion pursuant to sections (a) and (b) of In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark.App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985).
Affirmed.
GLADWIN, C.J., and HOOFMAN, J., agree.
Source: Leagle
