ÿWPCC????

??????ûÿ??2?

???ÿÿ????B?????????J??? ?Z??? ???ÿÿ????ú???Courier??#|?x????????????????2ô?x?þ?6?X??????@É?¹`7?û?X?@þþþþþþþÿþÿÿÿþÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿHP LaserJet 4????????????????????????HPLAS4.PRS? 4Û?x??? ?

?????@É?Ï????ð?????\?ðf!NX?@?#|?x???????????ûÿ??2???????????<???ÿÿ!????????X???·???ÿÿE???Q???Courier?Courier Bold?????????????????HPLAIIPL.PRS?Û?x??? ?

?????@É?Ï????,?ð?8?t?0(#õX?@Courier 10cpi?Courier 10cpi Bold?<?ÿÿ???x?x?x?,??????2ô?x?þ?6?X??????@É?¹`7?û?X?@þþþþþþþÿþÿÿÿ?ÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¸?ÿÿ???x?x?x?,??????)Æô?x?Ð??? ??????`É??7?û?X?þþþþþþþÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ?#|?x????????????????Û\ô?x?þ?6?X??????@É?8Ç?;?X?@þþþþþþþÿþÿÿÿþÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿHP LaserJet IIP Plus?????????????????HPLAIIPL.PRS?Û?x??? ?

?????@É?Ï????,?ð?8?t?ûÿ??2???????????A???????????????????????????????????Õ?y?????????X???????»ÁàL?ì???ÁAEROQUIP, INC. Ã?ÃvÄ?Ä. TILLEYÁ`à?(#D?ÁPage ?

Áà¨ ì???ÁCite as 59 Ark. App. ___ (1997)

y??ÕÐ????????ÐÐ????????ÐÔ???*?ì????ÔÐ? ?°?°?` ` ??ÐÔ?????` ???ÔAEROQUIP, INC. and Hartford Insurance Company

Ô?????Ä????ÔÃ?ÃvÄ?Ä. Roy "Junior" TILLEYÔ???*?ì????ÔÐ????????ÐÔ?????` ???ÔÐ? ?` ` °?°? ??Ð

CA 97©343Á`?(#=?Á___ S.W.2d ___

Áà\

ì???ÁCourt of Appeals of Arkansas

ÁàX?ì?%?ÁDivision II

Áà¸ ì???ÁOpinion delivered November 12, 1997

Ô? ??????Ð? ??ÔÐ??????????Ð1.Â?X???????ÂÃ ÃWorkers' compensation ©© review on appeal ©© factors

Ô? ??????` ??Ôconsidered. ©©Ä Ä On appeal in workers' compensation cases, the

appellate court views the evidence and all reasonable

inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to

the Commission's findings and will affirm if those findings

are supported by substantial evidence; substantial evidence

means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept

as adequate to support a conclusion; the issue on appeal is

not whether the appellate court might have reached a different

result or whether the evidence would have supported a contrary

finding; if reasonable minds could reach the Commission's

conclusion, its decision must be affirmed. Æ(#??Æ

Ô? ?????? ? ??Ô2.Â?X???????ÂÃ ÃWorkers' compensation ©© witnesses and evidence ©© function

Ô? ??????°? ??Ôand duty of Commission. ©© Ä ÄIt is the function of the Workers'

Compensation Commission to determine the credibility of the

witnesses and the weight given to their testimony; the

Commission has the duty of weighing medical evidence and, if

the evidence is conflicting, its resolution is a question of

fact for the Commission; 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 thoseÔ????? (??????????0*0*0*°?°????Ô portions of the testimony it deems worthy of belief. Æ(#??Æ

Ô? ?????? ? ??Ô3.Â?X???????ÂÃ ÃWorkers' compensation ©© appellee proved that he sustained

compensable injury ©© Commission's finding of compensable

Ô? ??????@? ??Ôinjury supported by substantial evidence. ©© Ä ÄThe Workers'

Compensation Commission's finding of a compensable injury was

supported by substantial evidence; the Commission found both

that appellee had shown by a preponderance of the evidence

that he had sustained a compensable injury that arose out of

and in the course of his employment and that although appellee

had suffered for some time from some degenerative disc

disease, the main source of appellee's current complaints and

the recommended surgery arose from his L5©S1 problem area; the

appellate court found that reasonable minds could have reached

a similar result where the medical evidence prior to the

accident showed that although appellee suffered from some back

problems, none seemed to require operative intervention, nor

did they include a large ruptured disc at L5©S1. Æ(#??Æ

Ô? ??????°? ??Ô4.Â?X???????ÂÃ ÃWorkers' compensation ©© appellant's argument without merit ©©

Ô? ??????@? ??ÔCommission determines witness credibility. ©©Ä Ä Appellant's

claims that appellee had reason to feign the injury because he

had no more time available to take a leave of absence and

therefore his testimony could not be considered a credible

basis for the finding was without merit; it is the function ofÔ?????%??????????0*?'?'Ð?Ð????Ô the Workers' Compensation Commission to determine the

credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their

testimony. Æ(#??Æ

Ô? ??????@? ??Ô5.Â?X???????ÂÃ ÃWorkers' compensation ©© claimant need not offer objective

medical evidence to prove circumstances under which injury

sustained ©© no error in Commission's finding of compensable

Ô? ??????ð

??Ôinjury. ©©Ä Ä Appellant's argument that the Workers' Compensation

Commission erred in finding a compensable injury where there

was no medical evidence supported by objective findings of the

injury was without merit; a claimant need not offer objective

medical evidence to prove the circumstances under which the

injury was sustained or the precise time of the injury's

occurrence; although the legislature has required medical

evidence supported by objective findings to establish a

compensable injury, it does not follow that such evidence is

required to establish each and every element of

compensability; the Commission's decision was affirmed. Æ(#??Æ

Á???????ÁAppeal from the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission;

affirmed.

Á???????ÁÃ?ÃFrederick S. "Rick" SpencerÄ?Ä, for appellants.

Á???????ÁÃ?ÃFriday, Eldredge & ClarkÄ?Ä, by: Ã?ÃWilliam M. Griffin IIIÄ?Ä and

Ã?ÃClifford W. PlunkettÄ?Ä, for appellee.Ô?????%??????????0*?'?'Ð?Ð????ÔÔ? ???????? ??ÔÁ???????ÁÃ ÃJohn E. JenningsÄ Ä, Judge.

Ð??????????ÐÁ???????ÁThis is a workersÀ??À compensation case. Appellee, Roy "Junior"

Tilley, was employed by appellant, Aeroquip, Inc., and performed

manual labor. The Commission found that appellee sustained a

compensable injury on July 30, 1994, while working for appellant,

and awarded appellee temporary total disability benefits from

August 7, 1994, through September 15, 1994, and temporary partial

disability benefits for two weeks subsequent to September 15, 1994,

based on six©hour working days. Appellant was also ordered to pay

all reasonable and necessary medical costs associated with

appelleeÀ??Às injury and attorneyÀ??Às fees.

Á???????ÁAppellant and its insurance carrier appeal from the

CommissionÀ??Às decision arguing that: (1) the CommissionÀ??Às finding

that appellee proved he sustained a compensable injury is notÔ?????h)??????????0*0*0*°?°????Ô supported by substantial evidence; and (2) the Commission erred in

finding a compensable injury where there was "no medical evidence

supported by objective findings of the injury." We disagree and

affirm.

Á???????ÁOn appeal in workersÀ??À compensation cases, we view the evidence

and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most

favorable to the CommissionÀ??Às findings and will affirm if those

findings are supported by substantial evidence. Ã?ÃMorelock v.

Kearney Co.Ä?Ä, 48 Ark. App. 227, 894 S.W.2d 128 (1995). Substantial

evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might

accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Ã?ÃCollege Club Dairy v.

CarrÄ?Ä, 25 Ark. App. 215, 756 S.W.2d 128 (1988). The issue on appeal

is not whether we might have reached a different result or whether

the evidence would have supported a contrary finding; if reasonable

minds could reach the CommissionÀ??Às conclusion, we must affirm its

decision. Ã?ÃBearden Lumber Co. v. BondÄ?Ä, 7 Ark. App. 65, 644 S.W.2d

321 (1983).

Á???????ÁIt is the function of the Commission to determine the

credibility of the witnesses and the weight given to their

testimony. Ã?ÃWhaley v. HardeeÀ??ÀsÄ?Ä, 51 Ark. App. 166, 912 S.W.2d 14

(1995). The Commission has the duty of weighing medical evidence

and, if the evidence is conflicting, its resolution is a question

of fact for the Commission. 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 it deems worthy of belief. Ã?ÃWhaleyÄ?Ä, Ã?ÃsupraÄ?Ä. Ô??????'??????????0* ( (@?@????ÔÁ???????ÁAppellant first argues on appeal that the CommissionÀ??Às finding

of a compensable injury is not supported by substantial evidence.

Specifical¬ly, appellant argues that appellee failed to prove by a

preponder¬ance of the evidence that he sustained a compensable

injury that caused his current back problems. Appellee testified

that, at the time of his injury, he was working on a bonding

machine. According to appellee, in an effort to stop a rope from

going through the machine too fast, he grabbed the rope to stop it

and was jerked over the table. Appellee testified that the mandrel

he grabbed weighed somewhere between 700 and 800 pounds. Appellee

stated that he reported the incident to his supervisor, Jerry

Claypool, the next day and went to the emergency room that day

where he was treated by Dr. Black, who later referred appellee to

Dr. Foster.

Á???????ÁAppellee also testified that he has had previous back

problems, dating as far back as the early 1980's. Appellee stated,

as evidenced by the medical information presented, that he has seen

various chiropractors, orthopedic doctors, and regular family

practitioners regarding his back problems over the years. In

addition, appellee testified that prior to this incident, he had

recently missed work due to his current emotional problems.

Á???????ÁJerry Claypool, appelleeÀ??Às supervisor at the time of the

accident, testified that on July 29, 1994, he talked with appellee

regarding his concern over attendance and told appellee that he had

used up all of his vacation and sick time. Mr. Claypool stated

that on July 31, 1994, appellee reported to him the accidentÔ??????'??????????0* ( (@?@????Ô resulting in his injury which had occurred the day before.

Mr. Claypool further testified that he was unaware of appelleeÀ??Às

previous back condition and stated the reason for appelleeÀ??Às missed

work during the month of July was due to appelleeÀ??Às nervous

problems. Susan Hughes, the human resources administrator for

appellant, testified at the hearing that in July of 1994, appellee

had brought in a certification from the Twin Lakes Chiropractor

Clinic requesting that he be off work for six days.

Á???????ÁMedical reports in the record track appelleeÀ??Às back problems

since the early 1980's. The medical reports prior to appelleeÀ??Às

accident reveal that for the most part appelleeÀ??Às back problems

stem from degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine. A report

dated July 19, 1994, from the Kerr Medical Clinic, indicates that

appellee was experiencing low back pain. The report indicated that

five films were taken, and the impression was that appellee

suffered from a mild to moderate degenerative disc disease, mostly

around L4 and L5.

Á???????ÁDr. Foster, who saw appellee after his accident, indicated in

his report dated August 5, 1994, that appellee had a large disc

herniation at L5©S1 on the left, being probably an extruded

fragment, and which would likely require operative intervention.

A medical evaluation dated November 16, 1994, by Dr. Ledbetter of

Ozark Orthopedic Associates agreed with Dr. FosterÀ??Às assessments

finding that appellee had a large L5©S1 ruptured disc with probable

free fragment on the left. Dr. LedbetterÀ??Às impression was that

appellee suffered from herniated nucleus pulposus at L5©S1 left,Ô??????'??????????0* ( (@?@????Ô with a large free fragment, as well as from a herniated nucleus

pulposus at L4©5 with degenerative disc disease. Further, it was

Dr. LedbetterÀ??Às impression that appelleeÀ??Às main symptoms stemmed

from the L5©S1 left©sided herniated nucleus pulposus and that

appellee would benefit from a discectomy at L5©S1.

Á???????ÁThe Commission found that, based on a review of the evidence,

appellee had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that he had

sustained a compensable injury which arose out of and in the course

of his employment. The Commission further found that although

appellee had suffered for some time from some degenerative disc

disease, the main source of appelleeÀ??Às current complaints and the

recommended surgery arose from his L5©S1 problem area. We cannot

say that, in the case at bar, reasonable minds could not have

reached a similar result. The medical evidence prior to the

accident showed that although appellee suffered from some back

problems, none seemed to require operative intervention, nor did

they include a large ruptured disc at L5©S1.

Á???????ÁAppellant also claims that appellee had reason to feign the

injury because he had no more time available to take a leave of

absence (other than through workersÀ??À compensation) and therefore

his testimony in this case cannot be considered a credible basis

for the finding. As we previously stated, it is the function of

the Commission to determine the credibility of witnesses and the

weight to be given to their testimony. Ã?ÃWhaleyÄ?Ä, Ã?ÃsupraÄ?Ä.

Á???????ÁAppellant next argues that the Commission erred in finding a

compensable injury in this case where there was "no medicalÔ??????'??????????0* ( (@?@????Ô evidence supported by objective findings of the injury." More

specifically, appellant argues that, although there is objective

medical evidence of a herniated disc in this case, there is no

objective medical evidence that the herniation occurred as a result

of appelleeÀ??Às accident on July 30, 1994. However, in Ã?ÃStephens

Truck Lines v. MillicanÄ?Ä, 58 Ark. App. 275, ____ S.W.2d ____ (1997),

we held that a claimant need not offer objective medical evidence

to prove the circumstances under which the injury was sustained or

the precise time of the injuryÀ??Às occurrence. We stated in

pertinent part that:

Ð??????????ÐÂ?X???????ÂÂ?X?` ` ??ÂAlthough it is irrefutably true that the

legislature has required medical evidence

supported by objective findings to establish a

compensable injury, it does not follow that

such evidence is required to establish each

and every element of compensability. The

statutory defini¬tion of compensability as set

out in Ark. Code Ann. À??À 11©9©102(5) contains

many elements that simply are not susceptible

of proof by medical evidence supported by

objective findings. For example, a

compensable accidental injury must be shown to

have been caused by a specific incident and to

be identifiable by time and place of

occurrence. Ark. Code Ann. À??À 11©9ª102(5)(A)(i). Injuries inflicted at a time

when employment services were not being

performed are not compensable, Ark. Code Ann.

À??À 11©9©102(5)(B)(iii), nor are injuries

resulting from engaging in horseplay. Ark.

Code Ann. À??À 11©9©102(5)(B)(i). We know of no

type of medical examination or test that would

result in objective findings to show exactly

where and when an injury was incurred, or

whether the employee was injured while

performing employment services rather than

engaging in horseplay. Even statutes that

must be strictly construed will not be given a

literal interpretation leading to absurd

consequences that are clearly contrary to

legislative intent. Ã?ÃThomas v. StateÄ?Ä, 315 Ark.

79, 864 S.W.2d 835 (1993).Æx?` ÆÔ?????Ø'??????????0* ( (@?@????ÔÃ?ÃStephensÄ?Ä, 58 Ark. App. at 279©80, ____ S.W.2d ____ (1997).

Ð??????????ÐÁ???????ÁBased upon the foregoing, we find that there was substantial

evidence to support the CommissionÀ??Às finding and affirm the

CommissionÀ??Às decision.

Á???????ÁAffirmed.

Ô? ??????Ð? ??Ô Á???????ÁÃ?ÃPittman Ä?Äand Ã?ÃMeads,Ä?Ä JJ., agree.