Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 439 

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION II 

No. CV-16-268

NORTHWEST ARKANSAS 

COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND 

ARKANSAS INSURANCE 

DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC 

EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION 

APPELLANTS 

V.

ADRIANA BAEZA

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered SEPTEMBER 28, 2016

APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

COMMISSION 

[NO. G-202533] 

AFFIRMED 

DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge

 

Adriana Baeza suffered a compensable bilateral shoulder injury on March 2, 2012, 

while employed by Northwest Arkansas Community College (NWACC). The contested 

issues at a hearing held on September 28, 2015, included whether Baeza was entitled to an 

impairment rating to the body as a whole for her compensable bilateral-shoulder injury. 

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that Baeza was entitled to an impairment 

rating of fourteen percent to the body as a whole for compensable bilateral-shoulder injuries. 

The Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) affirmed and adopted the ALJ’s 

findings of fact and conclusions of law in an opinion filed January 25, 2015. NWACC 

appealed to this court but also filed a motion for reconsideration with the Commission. The 

Commission denied the motion. In the appeal to this court, NWACC contends the

Commission’s opinion awarding a fourteen percent permanent anatomical-impairment 
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 439 

2 

rating is not supported by substantial evidence because it was based upon active range-ofmotion testing. We affirm.

In appeals from the Commission, we view the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the Commission’s decision and affirm if it is supported by substantial evidence. J.B. Hunt 

Transp. Servs. Inc. v. Hollingsworth, 2016 Ark. App. 279, 285 S.W.3d 253. Substantial 

evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion. Id. We defer to the Commission’s findings on what testimony it deems to be 

credible, and the resolution of conflicting evidence is a question of fact for the Commission. 

Id. The Commission has authority to accept or reject medical opinion and to determine its 

medical soundness and probative force. Id. Credibility questions and the weight to be given 

to witness testimony are within the Commission’s exclusive province. Id. The issue is not 

whether we might have reached a different decision or whether the evidence would have 

supported a contrary finding; instead, we affirm if reasonable minds could have reached the 

conclusion rendered by the Commission. Id. Typically, we review only the Commission’s 

decision, not the ALJ’s; however, when the Commission affirms and adopts the ALJ’s 

opinion as its own, which is true here, we consider both the ALJ’s decision and the 

Commission’s opinion. Id. We review questions of law de novo, and if the Commission’s 

decision is based on an incorrect application of the law, we will reverse the decision. Wayne 

Holden & Co., Inc. v. Waggoner, 2016 Ark. App. 309, ___ S.W.3d ___. 

Here, the ALJ reviewed the evidence and methodologies utilized by Dr. Cyril Raben 

and Jon Lee, physical therapist, and concluded that Baeza was entitled to a fourteen percent 

impairment rating to the body as a whole as originally determined by Dr. Raben. The ALJ 
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 439 

3 

clarified that objective medical findings supported the rating, even though subjective active 

range of motion tests were also utilized. See Singleton v. Pine Bluff, 102 Ark. App. 305, 285

S.W.3d 253 (2008). The decision, affirmed and adopted by the Commission, demonstrates 

that it is supported by substantial evidence and existing law. Because the opinion adequately 

explains the decision and displays substantial evidence to support it, we affirm by this 

memorandum opinion pursuant to sections (a), (b), and (d) of our per curiam, In re 

Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985).

 Affirmed. 

GLADWIN, C.J., and VIRDEN, J., agree. 

Charles H. McLemore Jr., for appellant.

Cottrell Law Office, by: Wes Cottrell; and Brett D. Watson, Attorney at Law, PLLC, by: 

Brett D. Watson, for appellee.