Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 512
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CV-16-262
OPINION DELIVERED NOVEMBER 2, 2016
WARREN J. GREEN
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
V. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSION
NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL [NO. G409309]
DISTRICT AND ARKANSAS SCHOOL
BOARDS ASSOCIATION
APPELLEES AFFIRMED
ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Chief Judge
Warren J. Green appeals the January 25, 2016 opinion of the Arkansas Workers’
Compensation Commission (“Commission”) that affirmed and adopted the June 16, 2015
opinion of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and denied Green’s request for benefits
by finding that he had failed to prove that he had sustained a compensable injury. Green
argues that the decision of the Commission is not supported by substantial evidence. We
affirm.
We review a decision of the Commission to determine whether there is substantial
evidence to support it. Queen v. Nortel Networks, 2013 Ark. App. 523. We review the
evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to
the Commission’s findings. Id. It is the Commission’s province to weigh the evidence and
determine what is most credible. Id. The issue on appeal is not whether we would have
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 512
reached a different result or whether the evidence would have supported a contrary
conclusion; we will affirm if reasonable minds could reach the Commission’s conclusion.
Id. Typically, we review only the Commission’s decision, not the ALJ’s; however, when
the Commission affirms and adopts the ALJ’s opinion as its own, which is true here, we
consider both the ALJ’s decision and the Commission’s opinion. J.B. Hunt Transp. Servs.
Inc. v. Hollingsworth, 2016 Ark. App. 279, ___ S.W.3d ___.
It is the Commission’s duty, not ours, to make credibility determinations, to weigh
the evidence, and to resolve conflicts in the evidence and testimony. Adams v. Bemis Co.,
Inc., 2010 Ark. App. 859. Where the Commission has denied a claim because of the
claimant’s failure to meet his burden of proof, the substantial-evidence standard of review
requires that we affirm if the Commission’s opinion displays a substantial basis for the denial
of relief. Bolus v. Jack Cecil Hardware, 2013 Ark. App. 288. Because this is the sole issue
now before us, and because the Commission’s opinion adequately explains its decision, we
affirm by memorandum opinion. In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700
S.W.2d 63 (1985) (per curiam).
Affirmed.
ABRAMSON and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree.
Robert T. James, P.A., by: Robert T. James, for appellant.
Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, by: Guy Alton Wade and Phillip M. Brick, Jr., for
appellees.
2