On appeal, "[we] review matters of law [before the Commission] de novo, while according the interpretation of the Commission great weight and deference." Walker Mfg. Co. v. Butler , 740 So. 2d 315, 323 (¶39) (Miss. Ct. App. 1998) (citing KLLM Inc. v. Fowler , 589 So. 2d 670, 675 (Miss. 1991) ).

We must therefore review the record to determine whether the decision of the Commission is supported by the evidence or whether the Commission erroneously applied the law. See Ga. Pac. Corp., 586 So.2d at 826; see also Walker Mfg. Co. v. Butler, 740 So.2d 315, 323 (¶¶ 37–39) (Miss.Ct.App.1998) (finding that the admission of an unsworn doctor's note was not error and caused no substantial prejudice and citing the proposition that “[e]rrors along technical lines in the conduct of the hearing before the [C]ommission are not sufficient on review to cause a reversal unless substantial prejudice can be shown”) (citation omitted). Cf. Riddle v. Miss. State Bd. of Pharmacy, 592 So.2d 37, 42–43 (Miss.1991) (holding that the admission of prescribing physicians' affidavits was not error where the defendant pharmacist had been informed of his procedural-due-process rights); see also Greenwood Utilities v. Williams, 801 So.2d 783, 790 (¶ 23) (Miss.Ct.App.2001) (acknowledging the broad discretion and procedural flexibility that an AJ possesses); Miss.Code Ann. § 71–3–47 (“The [C]ommission shall have full power and authority to determine all questions relating to the payment of claims for compensation[.]”

We must therefore review the record to determine whether the decision of the Commission is supported by the evidence or whether the Commission erroneously applied the law. See Ga. Pac. Corp., 586 So.2d at 826 ; see also Walker Mfg. Co. v. Butler, 740 So.2d 315, 323 ( ¶¶ 37–39) (Miss.Ct.App.1998) (finding that the admission of an unsworn doctor's note was not error and caused no substantial prejudice and citing the proposition that “[e]rrors along technical lines in the conduct of the hearing before the [C]ommission are not sufficient on review to cause a reversal unless substantial prejudice can be shown”) (citation omitted).Cf. Riddle v. Miss. State Bd. of Pharmacy, 592 So.2d 37, 42–43 (Miss.

We will overturn [the] Commission's decision only when there is an error of law or an unsupportable finding of fact.” Montana's Sea Kettle Rest. v. Jones, 766 So.2d 100, 102 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2000) (internal citation omitted) (quoting Walker Mfg. Co. v. Butler, 740 So.2d 315, 320 (¶ 19) (Miss.Ct.App.1998)). DISCUSSION

Based on these facts and our limited standard of review in workers' compensation cases, I would affirm the Commission's decision because the decision was not arbitrary or capricious and was supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Walker Mfg. Co. v. Butler, 740 So.2d 315, 320 (¶ 19) (Miss.Ct.App.1998). Accordingly, I dissent from the majority's opinion.

“We are bound even though the ‘evidence would convince the [C]ourt otherwise if it were instead the ultimate fact[-]finder.’ We will overturn [the] Commission's decision only when there is an error of law or an unsupportable finding of fact.” Montana's Sea Kettle Restaurant v. Jones, 766 So.2d 100, 102 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2000) (internal citation omitted) (quoting Walker Mfg. Co. v. Butler, 740 So.2d 315, 320 (¶ 19) (Miss.Ct.App.1998)). DISCUSSION

¶ 9. On appeal, “[t]his Court will overturn a Commission decision only for an error of law or an unsupportable finding of fact.” City of Laurel v. Guy, 58 So.3d 1223, 1225 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (quoting Walker Mfg. Co. v. Butler, 740 So.2d 315, 320 (¶ 19) (Miss.Ct.App.1998)). The findings and order of the Commission are binding so long as they are supported by substantial evidence, and this Court is bound by the findings even though the evidence would convince us otherwise if we were the ultimate fact-finder.

“That fact-finding duty includes assessing the credibility of witnesses and determining the proper weight to give to a particular witness's testimony.” Id. (citing Walker Mfg. Co. v. Butler, 740 So.2d 315, 325 (¶ 46) (Miss.Ct.App.1998)). This Court “is obligated to afford such determinations of credibility in the fact-finding process substantial deference when reviewing an administrative determination on appeal[,] and the court exceeds its authority when it proceeds to re-evaluate the evidence and makes its own determination of the trustworthiness of some particular testimony.”

"That fact-finding duty includes assessing the credibility of witnesses and determining the proper weight to give to a particular witness's testimony." Id. (citing Walker Mfg. Co. v. Butler, 740 So. 2d 315, 325 (¶ 46) (Miss. Ct. App. 1998)). This Court "is obligated to afford such determinations of credibility in the fact-finding process substantial deference when reviewing an administrative determination on appeal[,] and the court exceeds its authority when it proceeds to re-evaluate the evidence and makes its own determination of the trustworthiness of some particular testimony."

"An appellate court is bound even though the evidence would convince that court otherwise if it were instead the ultimate fact finder." Walker Mfg. Co. v. Butler, 740 So.2d 315, 320 (¶ 19) (Miss.Ct.App. 1998) (citing Barnes v. Jones Lumber Co., 637 So.2d 867, 869 (Miss. 1994)).