 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Van Meter v. Whirlpool Corp.12/13/2000
could reach the Commission's conclusion, this court must affirm the Commission's decision. Id.
We find that reasonable minds could agree that the work activities that Van Meter described do not involve the type of heavy lifting or repetitive stress that could form the basis for concluding that her lower-back complaints constitute a gradual-onset back injury . Furthermore, regarding Van Meter's contention that the Commission impermissibly disregarded Dr. Craft's opinion, it is so well settled as to be axiomatic that it is the exclusive function of the Workers' Compensation Commission to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony, Williams v. Prostaff Temporaries, 64 Ark. App. 128, 979 S.W.2d 911 (1998), and once the Commission has made its decision on issues of credibility, we are bound by that decision. Express Human Resources III v. Terry, 61 Ark. App. 258, 968 S.W.2d 630 (1998). Here the Commission simply found that Dr. Craft's opinion was based on an erroneous factual predicate, i.e., that Van Meter had performed "heavy manual type labor" for more than twenty years. We hold that this constitutes a substantial basis for the Commission to give Dr. Craft's opinion little weight.
Affirmed.
Pittman and Griffen, JJ., agree.
|