Court Opinion

ID: 9762874
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:33:06.858052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:38.195043
License: Public Domain

James R. Cooper, Judge, dissenting. I dissent because I do not agree that the Commission made any findings justifying denial of benefits. In cases, such as the case at bar, where the Commission has denied a claim because of a failure to show entitlement to benefits by a preponderance of the evidence, we will affirm if the Commission’s opinion displays a substantial basis for the denial of relief. Williams v. Arkansas Oak Flooring, 267 Ark. 810, 590 S.W.2d 328 (Ark. App. 1979). Here, the Commission denied relief solely on the basis of its finding that the appellant injured his back while attempting to move a freezer at his mother’s house in June 1992. However, such an incident, even if it occurred, fails to display a substantial basis for the denial of relief where the Commission made no finding whatsoever with regard to the appellant’s contention that he sustained a work-related injury in July 1992, after lifting buckets of wet wheat at work. In this context it is important to note that the alleged work injury need not have been the sole cause of the appellant’s disability in order for that disability to be compensable: compensation may be awarded where the claimant’s ordinary work merely aggravates a prior condition. Colonial Nursing Home v. Harvey, 9 Ark. App. 197, 657 S.W.2d 211 (1983). However, the Commission in the case at bar never determined whether the alleged work injury contributed to the appellant’s disability; in fact, the Commission never found whether the alleged work injury actually occurred. Instead, the Commission based its denial of relief solely on its finding that the appellant sustained an injury while attempting to move a freezer at his mother’s house. I submit that this finding provides no substantial basis for the denial of relief for the simple reason that the appellant would be entitled to compensation even in light of the freezer incident if he suffered a subsequent injury lifting buckets at work, as he alleged, and thereby aggravated his prior condition. In the absence of a finding that the freezer incident was the sole cause of the appellant’s condition, or any finding whatsoever regarding the alleged work injury, the Commission’s opinion does not logically exclude the possibility of compensability and, therefore, provides no substantial basis for denial of relief.11 would reverse and remand. Mayfield, J., joins in this dissent.  . It might be noted that the Commission “found” that the appellant failed to prove that he suffered a compensable injury. Although incorrectly designated as a “finding," such a statement regarding a party’s having failed to meet his or her burden of proof is in fact a conclusion of law. and does not constitute a specific finding which is susceptible to review on appeal. Cagle Fabricating & Steel. Inc. v. Patterson. 309 Ark. 365, 830 S.W.2d 857 (1992).