Cite as

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CV-16-262

OPINION DELIVERED NOVEMBER 2, 2016

WARREN J. GREEN APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS V. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL [NO. G409309] DISTRICT AND ARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION APPELLEES AFFIRMED

ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Chief Judge

Warren J. Green appeals the January 25, 2016 opinion of the Arkansas Workers’

Compensation Commission (“Commission”) that affirmed and adopted the June 16, 2015

opinion of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and denied Green’s request for benefits

by finding that he had failed to prove that he had sustained a compensable injury. Green

argues that the decision of the Commission is not supported by substantial evidence. We

affirm.

We review a decision of the Commission to determine whether there is substantial

evidence to support it. Queen v. Nortel Networks,

. 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 Cite as

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.

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. J.B. Hunt Transp. Servs.

Inc. v. Hollingsworth,

, ___ S.W.3d ___.

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

the evidence, and to resolve conflicts in the evidence and testimony. Adams v. Bemis Co.,

Inc.,

. Where the Commission has denied a claim because of the

claimant’s failure to meet his 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. Bolus v. Jack Cecil Hardware,

. Because this is the sole issue

now before us, and because the Commission’s opinion adequately explains its decision, we

affirm by memorandum opinion. In re Memorandum Opinions,

,

(1985) (per curiam).

Affirmed.

ABRAMSON and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree.

Robert T. James, P.A., by: Robert T. James, for appellant.

Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, by: Guy Alton Wade and Phillip M. Brick, Jr., for

appellees.

2