# Guidry v. J & R Eads Construction Co.

> Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 16, 1984 · 11 Ark. App. 219

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9683138

## Case

- **Full name:** Moise Joseph GUIDRY, Jr. v. J & R EADS CONSTRUCTION CO. and USF&G INSURANCE CO.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Arkansas
- **Decided:** May 16, 1984
- **Citations:** 11 Ark. App. 219; 669 S.W.2d 483; 1984 Ark. App. LEXIS 1539
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Glaze
- **Judges:** Mayfield, Cloninger, Glaze
- **Cited by:** 20 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9683138

## Opinion text

Tom Glaze, Judge, dissenting. The Commission found appellant’s second surgery was not a result of the May 29, 1980, injury, but was a result of either the automobile accident of November 7, 1980, or the fall from a ladder in January of 1981. Such a finding was clearly supported by substantial evidence, particularly that medical evidence showing appellant’s condition that required the second surgery was caused by the vehicular accident. The majority does not actually deny that such substantial evidence exists, but it remands the case because it infers from one of the Commission’s statements that the Commission actually refused compensation to the appellant because he was untruthful. I do not agree with the majority’s interpretation of what the Commission found and held. Appellant’s credibility was an issue, and in view of all the evidence, the Commission simply did not believe or accept the appellant’s arguments concerning the effect of his automobile accident. Credibility is always a matter lying exclusively within the province of the Commission. Here, the Commission resolved that credibility issue against appellant; merely because the Commission found that the appellant lacked credibility is no reason to remand this matter for further proceedings. Because substantial evidence supports the Commission’s denial of benefits, our remanding this matter will unnecessarily prolong this cause, and will in no way change the result. I would affirm.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9683138. Public record. Not legal advice.