Court Opinion

ID: 9671450
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:36:48.841232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:44:54.581237
License: Public Domain

Margaret Meads, Judge, concurring. I concur with the majority opinion, which reverses the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission in this case for lack of substantial evidence. That finding, in my judgment, makes it unnecessary for us to reach appellant’s argument that the Commission’s interpretation of Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(5)(A)(ü)(a) (1996), is erroneous. The majority opinion clearly and logically reaches the conclusion that reasonable minds could not agree that appellant’s assembly fine work does not qualify as “rapid repetitive” in the ordinary and generally accepted meaning of the words, and I agree with it. Having so determined, there is no need for interpretation of the statute. Neal, J., joins in this concurrence.