Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 57
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CV-13-725
JESSICA WEBB Opinion Delivered January 22, 2014
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
V. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSION [NO. G205275]
LETHA’S PIES and FIRSTCOMP
INSURANCE
APPELLEES AFFIRMED
DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge
An administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that appellant Jessica Webb failed to
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she suffered a compensable injury to her right
shoulder while employed by appellee Letha’s Pies. The Commission affirmed and adopted
the ALJ’s opinion. Webb now appeals, arguing that substantial evidence supports a finding
that her right-shoulder injury is a gradual-onset, rapid-repetitive-motion injury related to her
work with appellee. We affirm the Commission’s decision.
In 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. Flynn v.
Southwest Catering Co., 2010 Ark. App. 766, 379 S.W.3d 670. Substantial evidence exists if
reasonable minds could reach the Commission’s conclusion. Id. When a claim is denied due
to the claimant’s failure to prove entitlement to compensation by a preponderance of the
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 57
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. Id. Questions
concerning the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony are
within the exclusive province of the Commission. Cedar Chem. Co. v. Knight, 372 Ark. 233,
273 S.W.3d 473 (2008). When there are contradictions in the evidence, it is within the
Commission’s province to reconcile conflicting evidence and to determine the true facts. Id.
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. Id. The Commission has the authority
to accept or reject a medical opinion and the authority to determine its probative value.
Poulan Weed Eater v. Marshall, 79 Ark. App. 129, 84 S.W.3d 878 (2002).
For an 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. Lay v. United Parcel Serv., 58 Ark. App. 35, 944 S.W.2d 867
(1997); Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(ii)(a) (Repl. 2012). 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. Galloway v. Tyson Foods,
2
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 57
2010 Ark. App. 610, 378 S.W.3d 210. 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. Id.
Furthermore, the injury must be established by medical evidence supported by objective
findings. Lay, supra; Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D) and (16)(A)(i).
Because the only issue in this case is whether there is substantial evidence to support
the Commission’s decision, and the ALJ’s opinion adequately explains why Webb’s claim was
denied, we affirm by memorandum opinion under subsections (a) and (b) of In re Memorandum
Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985).
Affirmed.
HARRISON and WYNNE, JJ., agree.
Tolley & Brooks, P.A., by: Evelyn E. Brooks, for appellant.
Worley, Wood & Parrish, P.A., by: Melissa Wood, for appellees.
3