Cite as

Susan Williams ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS 2019.01.03 DIVISION II 12:51:10 -06'00' No. CV-12-688

OPINION DELIVERED SEPTEMBER 25, 2013 THOMAS B. QUEEN APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION V. COMMISSION [NO.F213364]

NORTEL NETWORKS; TRAVELERS PROPERTY & CASUALTY CO. APPELLEES AFFIRMED

ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Chief Judge

This workers’ compensation case concerns an injury that appellant, Thomas Queen,

suffered on February 18, 2001. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission

ultimately found on remand, in its April 20, 2012 opinion, that Queen’s injury was

compensable, that Queen’s medical treatment for the period from February 19, 2001,

through January 29, 2003, was compensable, and that temporary total-disability (TTD)

benefits were awarded from February 19, 2001, through July 30, 2002, but that medical

treatment following January 29, 2003, was not reasonably necessary for treatment of his

compensable injury, and also awarded attorney’s fees.1 Appellant contends on appeal that no

substantial evidence supports the denial of additional medical treatment.

1 This is the second time that this case is before this court. In the original appeal, the Commission found that Queen did not suffer a compensable injury, but this court reversed and remanded for additional factual findings in Queen v. Nortel Networks, Inc.,

. Cite as

We review a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission to determine

whether there is substantial evidence to support it. Crosby v. Eaton Corp.,

. We review the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light

most favorable to the Commission’s findings.

It is the Commission’s province to weigh

the evidence and determine what is most credible.

The issue on appeal is not whether

we would have reached a different result or whether the evidence would have supported a

contrary conclusion; we will affirm if reasonable minds could reach the Commission’s

conclusion.

It is the Commission’s duty, not ours, to make credibility determinations, to weigh

the evidence, and to resolve conflicts in the medical opinions, evidence, and testimony.

Adams v. Bemis Co.,

, at 2. Where the Commission has denied a claim

because of the claimant’s failure to meet his or her burden of proof, the substantial-evidence

standard of review requires that we affirm if the Commission’s opinion displays a substantial

basis for the denial of relief. Parson v. Ark. Methodist Hosp.,

,

(2008). Because this is the sole issue now before us, and because the Commission’s

opinion adequately explains the decision, we affirm by memorandum opinion. In re

Memorandum Opinions,

,

(1985) (per curiam).

Affirmed.

GLOVER and WHITEAKER , JJ., agree.

H. Oscar Hirby and Robert S. Tschiemer, for appellant.

Phillip Cuffman, for appellee.

2