ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN E. JENNINGS, JUDGE

DIVISION IV

CA 00-1108

May 30, 2001

WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY AN APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS

APPELLANT WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION

VS.

JUDGE THURMAN JR. AFFIRMED

APPELLEE

Judge Thurman sustained a back injury on April 7, 1998, while installing a vent-a-hood with his co-workers. Appellee was diagnosed with a herniated disc for which he underwent surgery in August 1998. Since June 1, 1998, appellee has remained off work and totally incapacitated. The law judge found appellee's injury compensable, and the Commission unanimously affirmed and adopted that decision. Appellant argues that the Commission's opinion is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree and affirm.

On appellate review, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the findings of the Commission and give the testimony its strongest probative force in favor of the action of the Commission. Patterson v. Arkansas Dep't of Health, 70 Ark. App. 182, 15 S.W.3d 701 (2000). Our standard of review on appeal is whether the Commission's decision is supported by substantial evidence. Buford v. Standard Gravel Co., 68 Ark. App. 162, 5 S.W.3d 478 (1999). We do not reverse a decision of the Commis sion unless we are convinced that fair-minded persons with the same facts before them could not have arrived at the conclusion reached. Ellison v. Therma Tru, 71 Ark. App. 410, 30 S.W.3d 769 (2000).

Appellee, who is also a minister, began working for appellant company in 1971 and, since 1978, had been working in the filing and grinding department. He testified that as part of his duties he was required to lift saws weighing five to six pounds each and that he would carry as many as six in each hand. Appellee testified that the vent-a-hood he was installing on April 7 was six feet long and three feet wide and that it weighed nearly three hundred pounds. While he and three of his co-workers were trying to maneuver the hood into place, it got hung up on something, pinning him, and the thirty-pound glass doors on it came open and hit him in the back. Appellee stated that, once he freed himself from the hood, he sat on a metal stool while the others bolted it intoplace. He testified that he reported the incident to his supervi sor approximately thirty minutes later but that his supervisor did not fill out an accident report nor a "near miss" report. Appellee stated that, although he worked the rest of the day, he did not put out his full effort because he was in pain. Appellee testified that, "I thought maybe I had just pulled a muscle . . . I didn't want it to be as severe as it was." He testified that he took ibuprofen when he got home but that he was reluctant to see a doctor. Appellee testified that he made the connection between his back pain and the incident at work about a week or so after the incident. He stated that he tried to reach his supervisor at home on several occasions but was unable to do so. Appellee admitted that he did not want to file a workers' compensation claim until he found out the severity of his injury.

Shelba Thurman, appellee's wife who is a nurse, testified that when appellee told her about the incident at work, she did not think it was a severe injury either. Mrs. Thurman stated that appellee did not want to go to the doctor but, because his pain had worsened, she called Dr. John C. Sayre and got a prescription and an appointment. She testified that she filled out the paperwork for appellee on May 20 at Dr. Sayre's office because he was in too much pain. She stated that they did not discuss the questions onthe form she filled out and that she merely wrote down his job description.

David White, one of the co-workers who helped appellee install the vent-a-hood, testified that the hood became overbalanced and that appellee started yelling. He stated that he could see that appellee was in a bind and that his clothing had gotten tangled in the hood. White stated that he was not under the impression that appellee was injured and that he did not remember appellee complaining of pain after the incident.

David Jones, another co-worker who helped install the vent-a-hood, testified that he did not remember anything out of the ordinary happening on April 7. Jones stated that he did not recall appellee indicating that he was having back pain. Jones testified that, although he commonly kept ibuprofen in his locker, he did not remember appellee specifically asking him for any.

Ronnie Lofton, superintendent for appellant company, testified that appellee's first missed day of work following the incident was during the first week of June. He recalled noticing that appellee was in pain the last week of May, but, when he asked appellee what had happened, he stated that appellee said he had hurt his back but did not know how.

In his deposition testimony, Wade Jessee, appellant's supervisor at the time of the incident, testified that he remembered the accident on April 7, 1998. He stated that appellee told him about the trouble with the hood and showed him his torn shirt. Jessee stated that appellee did not tell him that he had hurt his back. He testified that appellee did not mention that his back was hurting until the end of May and that appellee told him several times that he did not know how he had injured his back. Jessee stated that it was not until June 16 that appellee called him and told him that he was going to have some tests done on his back and that he had remembered how he injured his back.

In his deposition testimony, Dr. John Reeves Gregory admitted that there was no mention of an injury in his initial notes. He stated that a herniated or bulging disc can come up without any history of injury at all and that a doctor must rely to some extent on what the patient says. Dr. Gregory stated that his findings were consistent with the April 7 injury that appellee described.

Dr. Sayre testified by deposition that he had never treated appellee for back pain before May 20, 1998. He also stated that a herniated disc can be caused by "anything or nothing at all." Dr. Sayre conceded that appellee did not tell him of the incident involving the vent-a-hood when he came for the first visit on May 20, 1998. He stated that he could not remember whether appellee told him in May or in June how he had injured his back but that his opinion was that appellee's injury was the result of a work-relatedaccident. Dr. Sayre testified that appellee is a tough man with a very high tolerance for pain and that appellee wanted to continue working.

The Commission found that appellee had not experienced limitations or restrictions relative to his back prior to April 7, 1998. The Commission also found that the testimony of both Dr. Sayre and appellee reflected that appellee, despite being in pain, was resistant to obtaining medical treatment. The Commission relied on the opinions of Dr. Sayre and Dr. Gregory that appellee's back injury was caused by the vent-a-hood incident on April 7, 1998. Finally, the Commission found that the credible testimony of appellee and his wife was corroborated by White and Jones and that Jessee acknowledged that the incident was reported to him.

Appellant argues that appellee has not given credible testimony about the source of his back problems. Appellant points out that appellee testified that he made the connection between the April 7 incident and his back pain a week after the incident but that he denied a work-related injury to his doctors a month later in May and early June. Appellant points out that both appellee and his wife testified that she was aware of the vent-a-hood incident on April 7 but that, when she described the injury at Dr. Gregory's office, she gave specific details of an incident that had nothing to do with the April 7 incident. Appellant alsopoints out that appellee did not report a work-related injury to Jessee on April 7.

Questions concerning the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony are within the exclusive province of the Commission. Arkansas Dep't of Health v. Williams, 43 Ark. App. 169, 863 S.W.2d 583 (1993). When there are contradic tions in the evidence, it is within the Commission's province to reconcile conflicting evidence and to determine the true facts. Id. Here the Commission chose to believe that appellee suffered a back injury while moving the vent-a-hood and that he was simply reluctant to admit the severity of his injury and receive treatment for it. Likewise, the Commission must have believed that appel lee's wife was merely mistaken when she filled out the forms for appellee in Dr. Gregory's office.

Appellant argues that the doctors based their opinions on appellee's "after-the-fact" history about the vent-a-hood which he did not relate until June. Appellant also argues that the evidence supports an injury date of May 18, 1998, rather than April 7, 1998 and that the medical records indicate that the May injury was not work-related. We recognize that the interpretation of medical opinion is for the Commission. Stafford v. Arkmo Lumber Co., 54 Ark. App. 286, 925 S.W.2d 170 (1996). The interpretation given to medical evidence by the Commission has the weight andforce of a jury verdict. Oak Grove Lumber Co. v. Highfill, 62 Ark. App. 42, 968 S.W.2d 637 (1998). Here the Commission found significant the fact that appellee did not experience any back complaints prior to his injury on April 7 and that both doctors related his injury to the incident at work. We cannot say that there is no substantial evidence to support the Commission's decision.

Affirmed.

Baker and Robbins, JJ., agree.