Dart v. Second Injury Fund , 2013 Ark. App. 578 ( 2013 )

Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 578ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CV-13-329
Opinion Delivered: October 9, 2013
LINDA DART APPEAL FROM ARKANSAS
APPELLANT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSION
V. [NO. F613791]
SECOND INJURY FUND,
ST. EDWARD MERCY
FOUNDATION,
MERCY HEALTH CENTER, and
DEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL
DISABILITY TRUST FUND
APPELLEES AFFIRMED
RHONDA K.WOOD, Judge
Linda Dart appeals from a Workers’ Compensation Commission’s decision that
awarded her a 40 percent wage-loss disability. Dart argues that she is, instead, totally and
permanently disabled. However, the Commission’s decision was supported by substantial
evidence, and we affirm.
Dart is 61 years old and has an associate’s degree in nursing. Dart’s most recent
position was team leader in the labor and delivery hospital section. Dart suffered a
compensable back injury in 2006, and the Commission awarded surgery and treatment.
That surgery included a lumbar fusion. Dart continues to undergo steroid injections every
three months because of nerve damage caused by the surgery.
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 578Dart testified that, as a result of the injury and surgery, she can only sit for 15–20
minutes, that she is unable to work, and that her mobility has been vastly diminished. Dart
also admitted that she receives social-security-disability and long-term-disability benefits.
No functional capacity evaluation was presented at the hearing, and the only other
evidence that supports Dart’s contention that she cannot work was not admitted into
evidence before the Commission. Further, the Commission found that Dart’s testimony
contradicted her earlier deposition testimony and, accordingly, gave little weight to her
statements about being unable to work.
Dart essentially argues that we should ignore the Commission’s evidentiary weight
and credibility determinations. But here, the Commission exercised its duty to make
determinations of credibility, to weigh the evidence, and to resolve conflicts in medical
testimony and evidence. Martin Charcoal, Inc. v. Britt, 102 Ark. App. 252, 284 S.W.3d 91(2008). Because the sole issue before us concerns the sufficiency of the evidence to support
the Commission’s findings, and because the Commission’s opinion adequately explains the
decision, we affirm by memorandum opinion. In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App.
301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985); Ark. Methodist Med. Ctr. v. Blansett, 2013 Ark. App. 480.
Affirmed.
GRUBER and HIXSON, JJ., agree.
Walker, Shock & Harp, PLLC, by: Eddie H. Walker, Jr., for appellant.
David L. Pake, for appellees.
2