NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS ANDREE LAYTON ROAF, Judge

DIVISION III

MARION WISE

APPELLANT

v.

GREG BREWER MASONRY

APPELLEE

CA00-1107

APRIL 18, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION E903009

AFFIRMED

Marion Wise appeals from an order of the Workers' Compensation Commission finding that he failed to prove that his herniated disc was compensable. The Commission reasoned that because Wise's testimony about its occurrence was not credible, he failed to meet his burden of proving that his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. On appeal, Wise argues that the Commission's finding is not supported by substantial evidence and is in error as a matter of law. We affirm.

In a workers' compensation case, the claimant bears the burden of proving by apreponderance of the evidence the compensability of his claim. Jordan v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 51 Ark. App. 100, 911 S.W.2d 593 (1995). Where the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, this court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commission's findings and will affirm if those findings are supported by substantial evidence. Shaw v. Commercial Refrigeration, 36 Ark. App. 76, 818 S.W.2d 589 (1991). Where, as here, the Commission denies a claim for failure to show entitlement to benefits, the substantial evidence standard of review requires that we affirm if the Commission's opinion displays a substantial basis for the denial of relief. Id. In making our review, we recognize that the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony are matters exclusively within the province of the Commission. Langley v. Danco Construction Co., 57 Ark. App. 295, 944 S.W.2d 142 (1997).

Here, the administrative law judge prepared a lengthy opinion, adopted by the Commission as its own, explaining in detail why it found Wise's evidence unconvincing. Specifically, the Commission found Wise, whose testimony was critical to his ability to establish that his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment, not to be a credible witness. From our review, we conclude that the opinion more than adequately explains the Commission's decision and displays a substantial basis for the denial of relief. See Shaw v. Commercial Refrigeration, supra; see also Langley v. Danco Construction Co., supra. Therefore, we affirm the Commission's decision by this memorandum opinion pursuant to our per curiam In re: Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985).

Affirmed.

Stroud, C.J., and Pittman, J., agree.