Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 611 

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS 

DIVISION II 

No. CV-17-201 

LARRY L. HARRISON

APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE

V.

STREET & PERFORMANCE, INC., AND 

LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP

APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS

Opinion Delivered: November 15, 2017

APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

COMMISSION 

[NO. G407090] 

AFFIRMED ON DIRECT APPEAL 

AND ON CROSS-APPEAL 

RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge

Larry L. Harrison worked for Street & Performance, Inc. (Street & Performance), for 

eleven and a half years as a hemi technician. He filed a claim with the Arkansas Workers’ 

Compensation Commission (hereinafter “the Commission”) asserting that his neck, rightarm, and right-shoulder injuries resulted from his employment with Street & Performance. 

Following a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ), the ALJ issued an opinion 

denying his claim on June 21, 2016 in its entirety. Harrison appealed to the Commission, 

and on its de novo review, the Commission issued a unanimous opinion dated January 11, 

2017, affirming in part and reversing in part the decision of the ALJ. Specifically, the 

Commission found that Harrison proved that he had sustained a compensable gradual-onset 

neck injury but failed to prove that he had sustained a compensable gradual-onset right-arm 

or shoulder injury. Harrison filed a pro se notice of appeal on February 1, 2017, and Street 
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 611 

2 

& Performance filed a notice of cross-appeal on February 7, 2017. The record was lodged 

with this court on March 14, 2017. We affirm on direct appeal and on cross-appeal. 

As a hemi technician at Street & Performance, Harrison provided technical assistance 

to customers over the phone and worked in the shop installing and repairing car motors. 

Harrison worked about ten hours a day at Street & Performance, typically spending about 

three to five hours on the phone and three to seven hours working in the shop. Harrison’s 

shop work included the removal and installation of wheels and tires, radiators, disc brakes, 

transmissions, motors, batteries, and other car parts. Harrison testified that he never counted 

how many cars he worked on in a year because it would fluctuate but that he always had at

least two cars he would work on at the same time. Harrison denied that he had been injured 

in a specific incident. 

As to potential rapid or repetitive work, Harrison testified regarding two different 

work activities: (1) closing the garage-bay door and (2) using a floor jack. Harrison stated

that lifting the garage door was the most repetitive thing he did at work and indicated that 

he had to open and close the door as many as fifteen times during a ten-hour shift. Harrison 

noted that he did not have to use the floor jack every day and used it for only 20 to 30 

minutes at a time. Harrison began to experience issues with his right arm, including tingling 

in his fingers and muscle atrophy, in October 2013.

On May 27, 2014, Harrison went to Sparks Preferred Clinic complaining of rightarm tingling and loss of muscle mass in his right arm. An x-ray of Harrison’s cervical spine 

revealed narrowed disc spaces. An MRI performed a month later revealed multiple disc 

protrusions, chronic compression conformity, and degenerated discs throughout the cervical 
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 611 

3 

spine. Harrison was referred to neurosurgeon Dr. Shawn Moore. Dr. Moore’s note from 

Harrison’s first visit on July 25, 2014, states that Harrison reported a three-year history of 

neck pain and frequent heavy lifting. Dr. Moore recommended surgery, which was 

performed September 12, 2014. Before this surgery, Harrison was off work beginning on

August 25, 2014, while recovering from hernia surgery. Harrison never returned to work 

at Street & Performance after August 2014.

On July 31, 2015, Harrison went to Mercy Hospital in Fort Smith with complaints 

of “chronic right shoulder pain.” He reported during intake that he had a history of heavy 

labor for many years and that he used to lift car radiators for a living. An x-ray of Harrison’s 

right shoulder was taken and was normal. An MRI or physical therapy were discussed as 

treatment options at the appointment. On September 28, 2015, Harrison saw Dr. Bao Dang 

at Sparks Family Medicine South for shoulder pain and chronic neck pain. Dr. Dang ordered 

an orthopedic referral. On October 27, 2015, Harrison saw Dr. Trent Johnson at Mercy 

Clinic Orthopedic in Fort Smith. Dr. Johnson’s examination revealed a right-shoulder 

rotator-cuff sprain and a possible full- or partial-thickness tear of the rotator cuff. A followup MRI revealed a full-thickness tear in the intersection of the supraspinatus tendon, 

tendinopathy, degenerative changes, bursitis, and a mild cyst. Dr. Johnson performed a 

right-shoulder arthroscopy with arthroscopic rotator-cuff repair, an acromioclavicular joint 

resection, and a biceps tenotomy on Harrison’s right shoulder on November 11, 2015. 

Harrison filed a claim with the Commission claiming his neck, right-arm, and rightshoulder injuries resulted from his employment with Street & Performance. Following a 

prehearing conference, Harrison’s claim was set for a hearing on March 29, 2016, with the 
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 611 

4 

issues being whether he sustained a compensable gradual-onset injury to his neck, right arm, 

and right shoulder as a result of his employment with Street & Performance and, if he did, 

whether he was entitled to medical benefits, temporary-total-disability benefits, and 

attorney’s fees.1

Before the hearing, Harrison submitted for the record a July 2015 letter from Dr. 

Moore that noted, “I think it is probable Mr. Harrison experienced cervical degenerative 

disc disease with radiculopathy related to his significant work-related obligations.” Dr. 

Moore also wrote, “Although degenerative disc disease is often considered a chronic 

degenerative process, the significant work-related obligations that Mr. Harrison performed 

most likely contributed to this underlying condition and the development of his neck pain 

and radiculopathy.” 

Dr. Moore was called to testify at the March 29, 2016 hearing before the ALJ. Dr. 

Moore explained that Harrison’s condition, degenerative disc disease, is typically a chronic 

degenerative process, but it could be exacerbated by certain work conditions or trauma. As 

to his letter, Dr. Moore specifically testified that the “purpose of the letter was just to 

indicate [that Harrison] has a chronic degenerative condition but it can be exacerbated with 

significant activities.” Dr. Moore noted that while he could say that Harrison’s reported 

work activities were “a contributing factor” in the condition, he could not put a percentage 

on how much or how little Harrison’s reported activities contributed to the chronic 

 1

Harrison was represented by counsel during at least part of the proceedings below. 

He appeared pro se on appeal to the Commission as well as on appeal to this court. 
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 611 

5 

degenerative condition because “that’s subjective.” Dr. Moore testified that the letter he 

dictated was correct. 

Following the hearing, the ALJ issued an opinion denying Harrison’s claim in its 

entirety. Harrison then appealed to the Commission. As noted above, the Commission 

affirmed in part and reversed in part the ALJ’s decision. The Commission found that 

Harrison proved he had sustained a compensable gradual-onset neck injury but failed to 

prove that he had sustained a compensable gradual-onset right-arm or shoulder injury. It is 

from those proceedings that both parties appeal. 

In reviewing a decision from the Commission, our court reviews the evidence and 

all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the 

Commission’s findings and affirms if the decision is supported by substantial 

evidence. Nichols v. Micro Plastics, Inc., 2015 Ark. App. 134. Substantial evidence exists only 

if reasonable minds could have reached the same conclusion without resort to speculation 

or conjecture. Id. The issue is not whether the appellate court might have reached a different 

result from that of the Commission but whether reasonable minds could reach the result 

found by the Commission. Texarkana Sch. Dist. v. Conner, 373 Ark. 372, 284 S.W.3d 57 

(2008). It is the Commission’s duty, not ours, to make credibility determinations, to weigh 

the evidence, and to resolve conflicts in the medical testimony. Martin Charcoal, Inc. v. Britt, 

102 Ark. App. 252, 284 S.W.3d 91 (2008). 

We will not reverse the Commission’s decision unless we are convinced that fairminded persons with the same facts before them could not have reached the conclusions of 

the Commission. Cedar Chem. Co. v. Knight, 99 Ark. App. 162, 258 S.W.3d 394 (2007). 
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 611 

6 

Questions concerning the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their 

testimony are within the exclusive province of the Commission, and when there are 

contradictions in the evidence, it is within the Commission’s province to reconcile 

conflicting evidence and to determine the true facts. Neal v. Sparks Reg’l Med. Ctr., 104 Ark.

App. 97, 289 S.W.3d 163 (2008). The Commission is not required to believe the testimony 

of the claimant or any other witnesses but may accept and translate into findings of fact only 

those portions of the testimony that it deems worthy of belief. Id. The Commission is the 

ultimate arbiter of weight and credibility. Towler v. Tyson Poultry, Inc., 2012 Ark. App. 546, 

at 2, 423 S.W.3d 664, 666. 

On appeal, Harrison’s challenge to the Commission’s finding that he did not suffer a 

compensable injury to his right arm or right shoulder is not preserved for our review. In his 

brief, he contends that this court should find that his right-arm and shoulder injury, a 

rotator-cuff tear, was a compensable consequence of his neck injury. However, he did not 

present this argument to the Commission. Before the Commission, his sole contention 

regarding his right-arm and shoulder injury was that it was a compensable gradual-onset 

injury arising out of the course of his employment with Street & Performance. We have 

routinely held that we will not consider arguments presented for the first time on appeal.

Townley v. Ga. Pac. Corp., 2012 Ark. App. 48, 388 S.W.3d 475. Because Harrison is raising 

this matter for the first time on appeal and failed to get a ruling from the Commission, we 

are prevented from reviewing it. See Cooper v. Hiland Dairy, 69 Ark. App. 200, 11 S.W.3d 

5 (2000); Jordan v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 51 Ark. App. 100, 911 S.W.2d 593 (1995). Accordingly, 
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 611 

7 

we affirm the Commission’s opinion that Harrison’s right-arm and shoulder injury are not 

compensable. 

On cross-appeal, Street & Performance argues that the Commission’s decision that 

Harrison suffered a gradual-onset injury to his neck is not supported by substantial evidence 

in the record and therefore should be reversed. We disagree. This court must view the 

evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the Commission’s 

decision and must affirm that decision when it is supported by substantial evidence. Nichols, 

supra. 

Here, the Commission’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. On de novo 

review, the Commission found that Harrison had sustained a compensable gradual-onset 

neck injury arising out of the course of his employment with Street & Performance. On 

cross-appeal to this court, Street & Performance argues that the Commission’s decision was 

based primarily on a letter Dr. Shawn Moore had written on July 27, 2015, and that the 

Commission erred as a matter of law by considering and crediting Dr. Moore’s letter opinion 

specifically but not his hearing testimony. A claimant seeking benefits for a gradual-onset 

injury to the neck must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the injury arose 

out of and in the course of his employment; (2) the injury caused internal or external harm 

to the body that required medical services or resulted in disability or death; and (3) the injury 

was the major cause of the disability or need for medical treatment. Smith v. Commercial 

Metals Co., 2011 Ark. App. 218, at 9, 382 S.W.3d 764, 769; Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-

102(4)(A)(ii)(b) & (E)(ii) (Repl. 2012). “Major cause” is defined as more than 50 percent of 

the cause. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(14)(A). 
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 611 

8 

Street & Performance contends that the Commission arbitrarily disregarded the full 

scope and substance of Dr. Moore’s opinion as clarified through his hearing testimony by 

considering only his letter. We are not persuaded by Street & Performance’s argument on 

cross-appeal. 

In its January 11, 2017 opinion, the unanimous Commission wrote,

It is within the Commission’s province to weigh all of the medical evidence 

and to determine what is most credible. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. v. Baker, 337 Ark. 

94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1991). In the present matter, the Full Commission finds that 

Dr. Moore’s opinion as stated in his July 27, 2015 correspondence is supported by 

the record and is entitled to significant evidentiary weight. Dr. Moore credibly

opined that claimant’s cervical condition was causally related to the claimant’s work 

for the respondents. 

 

Based on the evidence in the present matter, the Full Commission finds that 

the claimant proved he sustained a compensable injury to his neck in accordance 

with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(ii)(b) (Repl. 2012). The claimant proved

that he sustained an injury causing physical harm to his body which arose out of and 

in the course of employment and was not caused by a specific incident. The claimant 

established a compensable injury by medical evidence supported by objective 

findings, namely the compression fracture and bulging shown on the June 25, 2014 

MRI of the claimant’s cervical spine. The claimant proved that these objective 

medical findings were causally related to the compensable injury. The claimant also 

proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the compensable injury was the 

major cause of his disability and need for treatment. 

 

We will defer to the Commission on credibility determinations and to resolve any 

conflicts in the medical testimony. Martin Charcoal, Inc., supra. Here, the Commission relied 

on Dr. Moore’s July 27, 2015 letter, which clearly states, “the significant work-related 

obligations that Mr. Harrison performed most likely contributed to this underlying 

condition and the development of his neck pain and radiculopathy.” We hold this satisfies 

that Harrison’s injury was a major cause of the disability or need for medical treatment. 
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 611 

9 

With our standard of review in mind, we hold that fair-minded persons could have reached

the Commission’s conclusion. Therefore, we affirm on cross-appeal. 

Affirmed on direct appeal and on cross-appeal. 

MURPHY and BROWN, JJ., agree. 

Larry L. Harrison, pro se appellant. 

Ledbetter, Cogbill, Arnold & Harrison, LLP, by: James A. Arnold II and Joseph Karl 

Luebke, for appellees.