The opinion
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 228
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No.CV-13-898
Opinion Delivered April 9, 2014
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
NAPOLEON TIMOTHY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
SANDEFORD COMMISSION
APPELLANT [NO. G105534]
V.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,
and LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP,
CARRIER/TPA
APPELLEES AFFIRMED
RHONDA K. WOOD, Judge
The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission ruled that Napoleon Sandeford
did not suffer a compensable injury while working at UPS. Sandeford appeals and argues
that substantial evidence does not support this decision. We disagree and affirm.
Sandeford worked at a UPS warehouse. One day in June 2011, he had to quit
work fifteen minutes into his shift when he began suffering from severe muscle spasms in
his lower back. Two co-workers testified that Sandeford told them that his injury was not
work related. Sandeford himself signed a piece of paper that said the injury was not work
related. Earlier that year, in January, Sandeford had presented to his family doctor with
back pain. He told the doctor that the spasms happened when he had been jogging.
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 228
Based on the medical records and testimony, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
denied benefits. The ALJ ruled that Sandeford’s injury was not work related and that he
had failed to establish a compensable injury by objective medical findings. Finding that
Sandeford did not suffer a back strain in the course of employment, the ALJ stated the
following:
All of the witnesses testified that the claimant was not coerced into signing
the statement and that it was the claimant that was insistent and adamant that he
wanted to leave and that his back pain and muscle spasms were not work-related.
In addition, the claimant testified that he could not recall a specific incident or
work activity which caused his muscle spasms in his back. Moreover, the medical
evidence reveals that the claimant had been under the treatment of doctors and
chiropractors for low back pain both in California and in Arkansas for several years
prior to his employment with UPS.
The Commission adopted these findings. When the Commission affirms and adopts the
ALJ’s findings, we consider the ALJ’s decision and the Commission’s opinion together.
Hawley v. First Sec. Bancorp, 2011 Ark. App. 538, 385 S.W.3d 388.
On appeal, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commission’s
findings and affirm if those findings are supported by substantial evidence. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. v. Brown, 82 Ark. App. 600, 120 S.W.3d 153 (2003). Substantial evidence is relevant
evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. The
issue is not whether we might have reached a different result than the Commission, but
whether reasonable minds could reach the Commission’s decision. Pulaski Cnty. Special
Sch. Dist. v. Tenner, 2013 Ark. App. 569.
The threshold and dispositive issue in this case is whether Sandeford suffered a
compensable injury in the course of his employment. Arkansas Code Annotated section
11-9-102(4)(A)(i) (Repl. 2012) provides as follows:
2
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 228
(A) “Compensable injury” means:
(i) An accidental injury causing internal or external physical harm to the body. . .
arising out of and in the course of employment and which requires medical services
or results in disability or death. An injury is “accidental” only if it is caused by a
specific incident and is identifiable by time and place of occurrence[.]
The claimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he
sustained a compensable injury. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(E)(i). Furthermore, “[a]
compensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by objective
findings.” Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D). The Commission is not required to believe
the testimony of any witness, but may accept and translate into findings of fact only those
portions of the testimony it deems worthy of belief. Kelley v. Courtyard Marriott, 2011 Ark.
App. 715, 386 S.W.3d 677. It is not the role of the appellate court to weigh the evidence
and judge the credibility of the witnesses. Ray Baxter, P.A. v. Baxter, 2012 Ark. App. 251,
413 S.W.3d 561.
We hold that substantial evidence supports the Commission’s opinion that
Sandeford did not suffer a compensable injury. On one hand, Sandeford’s own signed
statement and two of his co-workers’ testimony indicate that Sandeford’s injury was not
work related. On the other hand, Sandeford testified at the hearing that he only signed the
statement so he could leave to see a doctor. The ALJ did not find Sandeford credible, and
we defer to the ALJ on this point. Further, the ALJ noted that Sandeford’s spasms started
at the very beginning of his shift, he had a history of back problems, and he could not
point to a specific incident at work that prompted his injury. Based on these findings, and
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commission, we hold that there
3
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 228
was substantial evidence to support the Commission’s determination that Sandeford failed
to establish that he suffered a compensable back injury in June 2011.
Sandeford also asserts that the Commission erred in finding that he failed to
establish an injury by objective medical evidence and in finding no causation. Because we
have resolved the threshold issue against Sandeford, there is no need to address these
additional points.
Affirmed.
WYNNE and GRUBER, JJ., agree.
McKissic & Associates, PLLC, by: Jackie B. Harris, for appellant.
Mayton, Newkirk & Jones, by: David C. Jones, for appellees.
4