Hill v. Treadaway

5 Citing cases

  1. Kroger Ltd. P'ship I v. Bess

    2018 Ark. App. 404 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 3 times

    An injury is "accidental" only if it is caused by a specific incident and is identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Our court has held that an employee is performing employment services when he or she is doing something that is generally required by his or her employer. Hill v. Treadaway , 2014 Ark. App. 185, 433 S.W.3d 285. We use the same test to determine whether an employee was performing employment services as we do when determining whether an employee was acting within the course of employment.

  2. Jones v. Target Corp.

    2017 Ark. App. 199 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 3 times

    , 2015 Ark. App. 288, at 10–11, 462 S.W.3d at 375.Cossey v. Pepsi Beverage Co., 2015 Ark. App. 265, at 2, 460 S.W.3d 814, 816 (citing Hill v. Treadaway, 2014 Ark. App. 185, 433 S.W.3d 285 ).Id.

  3. Rodriguez v. Superior Indus.

    491 S.W.3d 146 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016)

    Id.Cossey v. Pepsi Beverage Co., 2015 Ark. App. 265, at 3, 460 S.W.3d 814, 816 (citing Hill v. Treadaway, 2014 Ark. App. 185, 433 S.W.3d 285 ).Walker v. Fresenius Med. Care Holding, Inc., 2014 Ark. App. 322, at 9, 436 S.W.3d 164, 170 (citing Templeton v. Dollar Gen. Store, 2014 Ark. App. 248, at 7–8, 434 S.W.3d 417, 421–22 ).

  4. Cossey v. Pepsi Beverage Co.

    2015 Ark. App. 265 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 6 times

    In reviewing Commission decisions, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commission's decision and affirm it if it is supported by substantial evidence. Hill v. Treadaway, 2014 Ark. App. 185, 433 S.W.3d 285. Substantial evidence exists if reasonable minds could reach the Commission's conclusion, and we will not reverse unless fair-minded persons could not have reached the same conclusion when considering the same facts. Id. Questions concerning the credibility of witnesses and weight of evidence, as well as the probative value of any medical evidence, are for the Commission to decide.

  5. St. Edward Mercy Med. Ctr. v. Gilstrap

    2014 Ark. App. 306 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014)

    In reviewing Commission decisions, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commission's decision and affirm if it is supported by substantial evidence. Hill v. Treadway, 2014 Ark. App. 185, ___ S.W.3d ___. Substantial evidence exists if reasonable minds could reach the Commission's conclusion. Id. The issue is not whether we might have reached a different result from the Commission; if reasonable minds could reach the result found by the Commission, we must affirm.