FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION [NO.
M. Ryburn, for appellees.
& Brooks, P.A., by: Evelyn E. Brooks, for appellant.
and Harrison, JJ., agree.
WAYMOND M. BROWN, JUDGE
William Kennan appeals the March 8, 2016 opinion of the
Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission (Commission)
that affirmed and adopted the June 30, 2015 opinion of the
Administrative Law Judge, which determined that appellant
failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he
suffered a compensable gradual-onset foot injury related to
his work as a truck driver for appellee Cawood Trucking.
Appellant argues that the decision of the Commission is not
supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.
reviewing Workers' Compensation Commission decisions, the
appellate courts view the evidence and all reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to the
Commission's findings; the decision will be affirmed if
there is substantial evidence to support it. Substantial
evidence exists if reasonable minds could reach the
Commission's conclusion. When a claim is denied due to the
claimant's failure to prove entitlement to compensation
by a preponderance of the evidence, the substantial-evidence
standard of review requires this court to affirm if the
Commission's opinion displays a substantial basis for the
denial of relief.Questions concerning the credibility of
witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony are
within the exclusive province of the
Commission. When there are contradictions in the
evidence, it is within the Commission's province to
reconcile conflicting evidence and to determine the true
facts. The Commission is not required to believe
the testimony of the claimant or any other witness, but may
accept and translate into findings of fact only those
portions of the testimony that it deems worthy of belief;
this court is foreclosed from determining the credibility and
weight to be accorded to each witness's
testimony.The Commission has the authority to accept
or reject a medical opinion and the authority to determine
its probative value.
injury to be compensable under the gradual-onset,
rapid-repetitive-motion theory, a claimant must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that (1) the injury arose out
of and in the course of his employment; (2) the injury caused
internal or external physical harm to the body that required
medical services or resulted in disability or death; (3) the
injury was caused by rapid-repetitive motion; and (4) the
injury was a major cause of the disability or need for
treatment. In performing the analysis of whether an
injury is caused by rapid-repetitive motion, a two-prong test
is employed-the tasks must be repetitive, and the repetitive
motion must be rapid. As a threshold issue, the tasks must
be repetitive, or the element of rapidity is not reached;
even repetitive tasks and rapid work, standing alone, do not
satisfy the definition-the repetitive tasks must be completed
rapidly. Furthermore, the injury must be
established by medical evidence supported by objective
the only issue in this case is whether there is substantial
evidence to support the Commission's decision, and
because the Commission's opinion adequately explains the
decision, we affirm by memorandum opinion.
Appellant attempts to argue that he
suffered a specific foot injury; however, that issue was not
presented to the Commission and is not ...