ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
DIVISION II

ALFORD CONTRACTORS and FREMONT COMPENSATION

APPELLANTS

V.

JAMES KIRK

APPELLEE

CA03-215

September 10, 2003

APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION

[NO. F106564]

AFFIRMED

Robert J. Gladwin, Judge

Appellants appeal the Workers' Compensation Commission's findings in favor of appellee, who sustained an admittedly compensable back injury. For reversal, appellants contend that there is no substantial evidence to support the findings of the Commission in that (1) the additional medical treatment sought by appellee is not reasonably necessary in connection with appellee's compensable injuries and (2) appellee is not entitled to temporary total disability benefits (TTD) because any disability he continues to experience is not related to his compensable injury. We affirm.

On June 11, 2001, appellee sustained injuries due to a motor vehicle accident he was involved in while employed by Alford Contractors. Appellants accepted the injuries as compensable. Appellee received physical therapy and medical treatment, and underwent various diagnostic tests. Appellants paid TTD benefits until October 1, 2001.

At a March 19, 2002, hearing before the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), appellee contended that he should be awarded additional TTD benefits from October 1, 2001, to a date yet to be determined and additional medical care as recommended by Dr. Earl Peeples. Appellants argued that the requested medical care was not reasonably necessary in connection with appellee's compensable injuries, and that appellee is not entitled to additional TTD benefits because any disability he continues to experience is not related to his compensable injury.

The ALJ determined that appellee was entitled to additional medical treatment and TTD benefits from October 1, 2001, to a date yet to be determined. The Commission affirmed and adopted the findings of the ALJ, and this appeal followed.

The standard of review in workers' compensation cases is well-settled. When reviewing a decision of the Arkansas 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. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Angell, 75 Ark. App. 325, 58 S.W.3d 396 (2001). Substantial evidence is that relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Wheeler Constr. Co. v. Armstrong, 73 Ark. App. 146, 41 S.W.3d 822 (2001). The issue is not whether this court might have reached a different result from the Commission; the Commission's decision should not be reversed unless it is clear that fair-minded persons could not have reached the same conclusions if presented with the same facts. Horticare Landscape Mgmt. v. McDonald, 80 Ark. App. 45, 89 S.W.3d 375 (2002); Wheeler Constr., supra.

In support of their contention that there is no substantial evidence to support the Commission's decision that additional medical treatment was reasonable and necessary, appellants cite numerous notations by the doctors and therapists involved in appellee's care. These notations reveal concerns that appellee was not making maximum efforts during his motor exam, that he presented inconsistent demonstrations of trunk control abilities, and that his giveaway/breakaway weakness during examination appeared to be voluntary. The notes also contain observations that there was no identifiable etiology for appellee's paralysis or weakness and that there was a very strong possibility he was experiencing a conversion reaction. Appellants point out that despite the various clinical examinations and objective diagnostic tests, no doctor could explain appellee's inconsistent and subjective complaints.

Appellee's response is that Dr. Peeples, who recommended additional treatment for him, was chosen by appellants. This doctor recommended that appellee be evaluated neurologically by Dr. Bradley Boop and psychologically by Dr. Winston Wilson.

It is within the Commission's sole discretion to determine the credibility of each witness and the weight to be given to their testimony, and it is not required to believe or disbelieve the testimony of any witness. Ford v. Chemipulp Process, Inc., 63 Ark. App. 260, 977 S.W.2d 5 (1998). The Commission may accept and translate into findings of fact only those portions of the testimony it deems worthy of belief. Whaley v. Hardee's, 51 Ark. App. 166, 912 S.W.2d 14 (1995). Once the Commission has made its decision on issues of credibility, the appellate court is bound by that decision. Linthicum v. Mar-Bax Shirt Co., 23 Ark. App. 26, 741 S.W.2d 275 (1987).

Here the Commission adopted the finding of the ALJ that the additional evaluations by Dr. Boop and Dr. Wilson are necessary and might well address the question of a possible causal connection, if any, between the claimant's on-the-job injury and his cognitive impediment and apparent weakness in his lower extremities. Although we may have reached a different conclusion concerning appellee's credibility if we were reviewing the case de novo, the determination of witness credibility is exclusively within the province of the Commission, and we are bound by its decision. See Ford, supra.

Appellants also contend there is no substantial evidence to support the Commission's decision that appellee is entitled to additional TTD benefits. Temporary total disability is that period within the healing period in which the employee suffers a total incapacity to earn wages. Arkansas State Hwy. Dep't v. Breshears, 272 Ark. 244, 613 S.W.2d 392 (1981). None of the doctors seen by appellee has released him to work, and Dr. Peeples recommended additional medical treatment. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Commission's award of TTD benefits, and we accordingly affirm.

Affirmed.

Pittman and Baker, JJ., agree.