Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 653 

## ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II No. CV

- 17

- 410

STEPHEN WILSON APPELLANT
V. RICELAND FOODS, INC., AND ACE AMERICAN INSURAN CE COMPANY APPELLEES Opinion Delivered: November 29, 2017
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATIO N COMMISSION [NO. G502370 ]

AFFIRMED

MIKE MURPHY, Judge This appeal arises from a workers’ compensation claim in which appellant Stephen
Wilson injured himself when he tripped and fell while working for appellee Riceland Foods, Inc. (Riceland) , on March 23, 2015 . Wilson appeals the Arkansas Workers’ Compensatio n Commission’s (Commission) determination that (1) he was not entitled to permanent partial- disability benefits in excess of the percentage of his permanent physical impairment and (2) he was employed at wages equal to or greater than his average weekly wa ge at the
time of the accident. We affirm. Wilson was forty

- one years old on March 23, 2015, when, while working as part

time seasonal help for Riceland, he slipped off a rice pod (described by Wilson in his
testimon y as “like a big old mountain”). He fell ten to twelve feet a nd landed on his
buttocks. A co wor ker took Wilson to the hospital where it was determ ined Wilson had
fractured his spine at the L1 vertebra in the fall and required surgery. He was in the hospita lCite as 2017 Ark. App. 653

2 for five days, was in a rehabilitation hospital for another three weeks, and required physical therapy for some time after. His testimony at the J uly 1, 2016 hearing before the administrative law j udge (ALJ) was that he still had pain from the accident a nd required pain
medication. The injury was not controverted. On June 25, 2015, Wilson was cleared to return to light

- duty work with restrictions. Wilson’s anatomical impairment resulting from the accident was evaluated on January 21, 2016 , by Dr. Scott Carle. Dr. Carle concluded that Wilson’s anatomical impairment was a 19 percent whole

- person impairment . The ALJ accepted this rating and further concluded that Wilson was not entitled to permanent -partial
disabilit y benefits in excess of that 19 percent b ecause, since returning to work, Wilson had received a raise from $9.75 per hour to $ 10 per hour. The Commission adopted the ALJ’s opinion. Wilson now appeals, arguing that the C ommission erred in finding that he was employed at wages equal to or greater than his average weekly wage at the time of the accident, and therefore erred in finding he was no t entitled to permanent partial -disability benefits in excess of the percentage of his permanent physical impairment. Under Arkansas law, the Commission is permitted to adopt an ALJ’ s opinion. Godwin v. Garland Cty. Landfill , 2016 Ark. App. 498, at 4, 504 S.W.3d 660, 662. In so doing, the Commission makes the ALJ’s findings and conclusions the findings and conclusions of the
Commission. Id. Therefore, for purposes of our review, we consider both the ALJ’s opinion and the Commission’s majority opinion. Id.Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 653

3 We review Commission decisions to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support them. Towler v. Tyson Poultry, Inc. , 2012 Ark. App. 546, at 2 , 423 S.W.3d 664, 666. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id . We review the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commission’s findings. Id . Where, as here, the Commission denies claims because of the failure to show entitlement to benefits by a preponderance of the evidence, the substantial

- evidence standard of review requires that we affirm if the Commission’s opinion dis plays a substantial basis for the denial of relief.
Id . The Commission is the ultimate arbiter of weight and credibility. Id . The Commission has the authority to accept or reject medical opinions, and its resolution of conflicting
medical evidence has the force and effect of a jury verdict. Id. Wilson argues that the ALJ erred when it did not award him permanent partial

disabili ty benefits in excess of the 19 percent anatomical -impairment rating. Arkansas Code Annotated section 11 -9- 522 (Repl. 2012) prov ides that when a
permanent

- partial disability is apportioned to the body as a whole, a claimant shall be paid compensation for the proportionate loss of use. This statute, though, also gives discretion to the Commission to increase that anatomical rating, such that it can even find a claimant totally a nd permanently disabled based on wage
- loss factors. Id . The wage

- loss factor is the extent to which a compensable injury has affected the claimant’s ability to earn a livelihood.
Emerson Elec. v. Gaston , 75 Ar k. App. 232, 58 S.W.3d 848 (2001). The Commission is charged with the duty of deter mining disability based on a consideration of medical evidence and other matters affecting wage loss, such as the claimant’ s age, education, and workCite as 2017 Ark. App. 653

4 experience. Whitlach v. Southland Land & Dev. , 84 Ark. App. 399, 404, 141 S.W.3d 916, 920 (2004). The statute goes on to provide, however, that so long as an employee, subsequent to his or her injury, has returned to work, has obtained other employment, or has a bona fide and reasonably obtainable offer to be employed at wages equal to or greater than his or her average weekly wage at the time of the accident, he or she shall not be entitled to permanent partial disability benefits in excess of the percentage of permanent physi cal impairment established by a preponderance of the medical testimony and evidence. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9- 522(b)(2). Here, the ALJ concluded that Wilson was precluded from additional wage

- loss benefits pursuant to this statute, as Wilson had received a raise at Rice land when he returned,
even while on light

- duty work. Wilson says that simply looking at his hourly rate does not, however, paint a full picture. He argues that ever since his accident, he has been unable to
work overtime or do odd jobs like before and that while he did get a raise, he is making less
money. Wilson cites Cook v. Aluminum Company of America , 35 Ark. App 16, 811 S.W.2d 329 (1991), for the proposition that to compute an average weekly wage, overtime should
be included in the calculation. In Cook , the issue on appeal was whether the employer had met the statutory burden of proving the claimant had returned to work after the injury to wages equal to or greater than his average weekly wage at the time of the accident. Id. There, the appellant submitted evidence that he was making less money after his accident
than he was before , and this court concluded that difference was because the appellant was working less overtime after the accident than he was before. Id . Nevertheless, because the
app ellant did work some overtime when it was offered and because his hourly rate was theCite as 2017 Ark. App. 653

5 same before and after h is injury, this court held that was substantial evidence to bar the appellant from receiving benefits in excess of his permanent physical impairment Id.
Here , there was testimony from Wilson that he received a raise upon returning to work. Further, Riceland introduced an exhibit documenting the wages and hours worked by Wils on from August 2014 through May 27, 2016. 1 That exhibit shows , and the ALJ found, that Wilson has worked consistently since returning from his accident, including working a substantial amount of overtime. Like in Cook , substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings that Wilson is no t entitled to permanent partial

- disability benefits in excess of the percentage of his permanent physical impairment.
Affirmed.
A BRAMSON and B ROWN , JJ. , agree. Hunter Law Firm, LLC , by: Scott Hunter, Sr. , for appellant. Womack Phelps Puyear Mayfield & McNeil, P.A. , by: Mark Mayfield and Chuck
Gschwend , for appellees.

1 Wilson argues that this exhibit is “flawed” and “misleading.” Wilson, however, failed to object to this exhibit or otherwise argue its shortcomings below. It is the exclusive function of the Commission to weigh the evidence. Beyond that, issues may not be raised on appeal that have not first been raised and decided below. Hanson v. Amfuel , 54 Ark. App. 370, 374

– 75, 925 S.W.2d 166, 169 (1996).