ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

TERRY CRABTREE, JUDGE

DIVISION II

LARRY OSBORN

APPELLANT

V.

CITY OF FORT SMITH

APPELLEE

CA 00-1028

APRIL 25, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION

[NO. E 808261]

AFFIRMED

The appellant, Larry Osborn, appeals from an order of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission denying him a seven percent impairment rating and wage loss as a result of an injury suffered on June 12, 1998. Appellant was employed by the appellee, City of Fort Smith, as a fireman. Appellant had back problems as early as 1991, and in 1994 an MRI showed appellant as having a L5-S1 herniated disk. Appellant contends that the Commission's findings denying him benefits are not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

When reviewing a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the findings of the Commission and affirm that decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. Clark v. Peabody Testing Serv., 265 Ark. 489, 579 S.W.2d 360 (1979). Substantial evidence

is that which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Crossett Sch. Dist. v. Fulton, 65 Ark. App. 63, 984 S.W.2d 833 (1999). The issue is not whether this Court might have reached a different result from the Commission. Malone v. Texarkana Pub. Schs., 333 Ark. 343, 969 S.W.2d 644 (1998). If reasonable minds could reach the result found by the Commission, we must affirm the decision. Bradley v. Alumax, 50 Ark. App. 13, 899 S.W.2d 850 (1995). In making our review, we recognize that it is the function of the Commission to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. Stephens Truck Lines v. Millican, 58 Ark. App. 275, 950 S.W.2d 472 (1997).

In the present case, the Commission affirmed the finding of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The ALJ denied appellant's claim based on the deposition testimony of Dr. Jeffrey Evans, appellant's primary treating physician. In his deposition, Dr. Evans stated that there was no change in appellant's L5-S1 herniated disc from 1994 to1998, making the 1994 injury the cause of claimant's herniated disk. In a subsequent letter by Dr. Evans to appellant's attorney, Dr. Evans stated that "since Mr. Osborn was asymptomatic following the 1994 herniation and has apparently had an exemplary work record during that interval period, I think that all seven percent of his impairment rating should be attributed to the 1998 injury." The ALJ found that Dr. Evans did not set forth new objective findings, but would indicate that the impairment rating is based on the claimant's complaints of pain and numbness.

From our review of the evidence, we cannot conclude that the Commission's findingsare not supported by substantial evidence. We find that the Commission's opinion adequately outlines its findings of fact to support and explain its decision. Therefore, pursuant to sections (a) and (b) of In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985), we issue this memorandum opinion affirming the Commission's decision.

Affirmed.

Robbins and Vaught, JJ., agree.