 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Norman v. Penske and Old Republic Insurance9/27/2000
ury resulted in his being medically excused from work for the days that he had requested off. Further, there were no objective findings to support the alleged injury. The law judge had no doubt that appellant experienced difficulties with his lower back and perhaps both his legs in November 1998, but appellant's testimony was the only evidence presented to link the difficulties to an alleged injury sustained on November 24, 1998. The law judge said that he "simply not find his testimony to be sufficiently credible to prove such a connection." The full Commission affirmed and adopted the law judge's opinion.
On appeal appellant argues only that the Commission erred in denying his claim because the preponderance of the evidence establishes a compensable injury . He says that his testimony is totally uncontroverted and establishes the compensability of his claim.
When reviewing a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the findings of the Commission and affirm that decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. Clark v. Peabody Testing Serv., 265 Ark. 489, 579 S.W.2d 360 (1979). Where the Commission denies a claim because of failure to show entitlement to benefits, the substantial evidence standard of review requires that we affirm the Commission's decision if its opinion displays a substantial basis for the denial of relief. Shaw v. Commercial Refrigeration, 36 Ark. App. 76, 818 S.W.2d 589 (1991). It is the exclusive function of the Commission to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. Id. A party's testimony is never considered uncontroverted. Lambert v. Gerber Prods., Co, 14 Ark. App. 88, 684 S.W.2d 842 (1985). On a claim for benefits, a claimant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Bartlett v. Mead Containerboard, 47 Ark. App. 181, 888 S.W.2d 314 (1994).
Here, appellant's testimony was the only testimony supporting the compensability of his claim. The Commission found him not to be credible. This finding is a permissible one, and we conclude that the Commission's decision displays a substantial basis for the denial of relief.
Affirmed.
Robbins, C.J., and Crabtree, J., agree.
|