Opinion
No. CA12-1045
05-01-2013
DARBY BOLUS APPELLANT v. JACK CECIL HARDWARE, and EMPLOYERS MUTUAL CASUALTY APPELLEES
Walker, Shock & Harp, PLLC, by: Eddie H. Walker, Jr., for appellant. Worley, Wood & Parrish, P.A., by: Melissa Wood, for appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
COMMISSION
[NO. G008134]
AFFIRMED
RITA W. GRUBER , Judge
This workers' compensation case concerns a compensable injury that Darby Bolus, appellant, suffered to her lower back when she tripped over a forklift during her work at Jack Cecil Hardware on May 5, 2010. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission denied her subsequent claim for wage-loss disability above her nine-percent anatomical-impairment rating and for temporary total-disability benefits from August 18, 2011, through December 14, 2011. Appellant contends on appeal that no substantial evidence supports the denial of wage-loss disability. We affirm the Commission's decision.
It is the Commission's duty, not ours, to make credibility determinations, to weigh the evidence, and to resolve conflicts in the medical opinions, evidence, and testimony. Adams v. Bemis Co., 2010 Ark. App. 859, at 2. Where the Commission has denied a claim because of the claimant's failure to meet her 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. Parson v. Ark. Methodist Hosp., 103 Ark. App. 178, 287 S.W.3d 645 (2008). Because this is the sole issue now before us, and because the Commission's opinion adequately explains the decision, we affirm by memorandum opinion. In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985) (per curiam).
Appellant's counsel cites Tyson Poultry Inc. v. Narvaiz, 2012 Ark. 118, 388 S.W.3d 16, to propose that a determination of wage-loss disability under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-522(B)(1) (Repl. 2012) "is not to be made until after an injured worker reaches maximum medical improvement." It is not apparent to us that this argument was raised to the Commission. See St. Edward Mercy Med. Ctr. v. Chrisman, 2012 Ark. App. 475, --- S.W.3d ---- (noting that in order to preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must present the issue to the Commission and obtain a ruling). At any rate, we rejected counsel's proposal in a recent case, Meadows v. Tyson Foods, Inc. , 2013 Ark. App. 182 (noting that Narvaiz dealt with Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-526 rather than section 11-9-522, which contains no element of reaching maximum medical improvement).
Affirmed.
HARRISON and BROWN, JJ., agree.
Walker, Shock & Harp, PLLC, by: Eddie H. Walker, Jr., for appellant.
Worley, Wood & Parrish, P.A., by: Melissa Wood, for appellees.