The claimant must prove three things by a fair preponderance of the evidence: (1) an accidental injury; (2) arising out of and in the course of employment; and, (3) a causal connection between the injury and the death or claimed disability. Guy v. B.C. Rogers Processors, Inc., 16 So.3d 29, 32-33 (Miss. Ct. App., 2009) (citing Hedge v. Leggett Platt, 641 So. 2d 9, 13 (Miss. 1994).

However, “although this Court must defer to the Commission on issues of the weight and credibility to be given to the testimony and evidence, the Commission's ultimate decision must be based on substantial evidence.” Guy v. B.C. Rogers Processors, Inc., 16 So.3d 29, 35 (¶ 24) (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (citation omitted). Further, “[w]hen the testimony is undisputed and not so unreasonable as to be unbelievable, taking into account the factual setting of the claim, the claimant's testimony generally ought to be accepted as true.”

As this Court recently stated, "[w]hen . . . testimony is undisputed and not so unreasonable as to be unbelievable, taking into account the factual setting of the claim, the claimant's testimony generally ought to be accepted as true." Guy, 16 So.3d 29, 35 (1125) (Miss.Ct.App. 2008). Fully realizing that the Commission is the fact-finder, after reading the hearing transcript and record thoroughly, we find that the record presents substantial evidence to support the first two elements necessary to show that Short has a compensable claim.

"Where no evidence or only a scintilla of evidence supports a Worker’s Compensation Commission decision, this Court does not hesitate to reverse." Guy v. B.C. Rogers Processors Inc., 16 So. 3d 29, 32 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting Foamex Prods. Inc. v. Simons, 822 So. 2d 1050, 1053 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002)). In Divinity’s case, the administrative judge was able to review numerous pieces of evidence when making his decision including:

1966) ).¶ 12. The caveat to this rule is that the testimony is still required to be supported by substantial evidence, as expressed in Guy v. B.C. Rogers Processors Inc. , 16 So.3d 29, 35 (¶¶ 21–24) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008). Based on the determinations of the various physicians, whose recommendations are discussed earlier in this opinion, we find substantial evidence to support the Commission's ultimate finding that Cardie's failure to complete the physical therapy and that "impacted his condition."

I thus find that the Commission's decision determining that Harper's death was compensable is not supported by substantial evidence. See generally Guy v. B.C. Rogers Processors Inc., 16 So.3d 29, 37 (¶¶ 30–31) (Miss.Ct.App.2008). I would therefore affirm the decision of the circuit court. IRVING, P.J., JOINS THIS OPINION.

“Contradiction exists when there is affirmative evidence to the contrary.” Guy v. B.C. Rogers Processors, Inc., 16 So.3d 29, 36 (¶ 25) (Miss.Ct.App.2008). Although Trooper Wilson said Huey and Crawley admitted to him they were driving aggressively, I do not find Huey's testimony so unreasonable that his version of events was necessarily untrue.

This court must defer to the Commission on issues of weight and credibility; however, “the Commission's ultimate decision must be based on substantial evidence.” Guy v. B.C. Rogers Processors Inc., 16 So.3d 29, 35 (¶ 24) (Miss.Ct.App.2008). “Substantial evidence requires more than mere conjecture or possibility.”