Ark. Dep't of Transportation v. Travis Evans

Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 39
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CV-24-296

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Opinion Delivered January 29, 2025

TRANSPORTATION AND ARKANSAS
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
DIVISION
COMMISSION
APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES
[NO. H106980]

V.
AFFIRMED ON DIRECT APPEAL;
AFFIRMED ON CROSS-APPEAL
TRAVIS EVANS
APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT

ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge

Appellant Arkansas Department of Transportation (“ARDOT”) appeals the decision

of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (the “Commission”) finding that

appellee/cross-appellant Travis Evans (“Evans”) met his burden of proving by a

preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a compensable injury to his spine on August

18, 2021, and that Evans is entitled to temporary total-disability (TTD) benefits beginning

on October 12, 2022, through March 27, 2023. Evans cross-appeals from the Commission’s

decision that he failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a

compensable injury to his pelvis or left hip on August 18, 2021, or that those are

compensable consequences of his left leg injury. We affirm.
I. Background Facts

Evans worked for the ARDOT, and on August 18, 2021, he suffered an admittedly

compensable injury to his left lower extremity. Evans testified that on August 18, he was in

the process of delivering a piece of equipment when his truck died. As he was getting out of

his truck, he put his foot on the bottom step and slipped, causing his leg to hit the ground.

He stated:

I tore the hamstring somewhere up in my hip. It feels like maybe about the center of
my backside. It hurts all the way from my belt loop down into the back of my knee
and then over to the side of my knee.

After the injury, Evans was seen by Dr. Christopher Bell in the emergency room and

was diagnosed with a left hamstring strain. Thereafter, Evans has been primarily treated by

Dr. Bryan Smith, an orthopedist at Mercy in Fort Smith. Dr. Smith performed his initial

evaluation of Evans on August 23 and diagnosed him with a left hamstring injury and noted

he was concerned that Evans had torn his hamstring. Accordingly, Dr. Smith recommended

that Evans undergo an MRI scan of his femur “to include the proximal aspect, all the way

up to the hamstring origin, all the way down to the level of the knee.” Evans underwent the

MRI on August 25, and according to Dr. Smith’s August 26 report, the MRI scan was

consistent with a complete tear of the biceps femoris tendon. Dr. Smith further indicated

that his plan was to treat Evans nonoperatively with activity limitations, physical therapy,

and anti-inflammatory medication.

On September 9, 2021, Evans returned to Dr. Smith, and the doctor noted that Evans

was having increased anterior knee pain at the level of the patellar tendon. Dr. Smith

2
prescribed muscle relaxers and recommended physical therapy and a hinged knee brace.

When Evans was seen by Dr. Smith on October 7, he had been undergoing physical therapy

for almost a month but was still experiencing issues with his knee. As a result, Dr. Smith

recommended and performed a knee injection for the purpose of relieving pain and to

determine whether there was any intra-articular involvement, such as a potential meniscus

tear. Evans returned to Dr. Smith on November 2 and reported that the knee injection

helped with pain and popping in his left knee; however, Evans continued to have pain. Dr.

Smith ordered an MRI scan of Evans’s femur and left knee. The MRI was performed on

November 19, and the results showed that Evans’s left knee was negative for any internal

derangement, such as meniscus tears. Furthermore, Dr. Smith noted, “I think what he is

dealing with now is more chondromalacia of the patella as well as some patellar maltracking

secondary to weakness in the quadriceps.”

Evans returned to see Dr. Smith on January 4, 2022, and Dr. Smith noted that Evans

had returned to work since the time of his last visit. Evans indicated that when he was

standing or walking on even surfaces, he did not have any issues, but when he was on hills

or rough terrain, he had complaints. Dr. Smith stated:

It is possible that some of this is related to patellar tracking issues that may have been
present before and now are exacerbated as he has to compensate for recovering
hamstring injury.

Evans saw Dr. Smith again on February 1, and Dr. Smith noted that Evans continued to

have problems with standing for extended periods of time and that he felt like he was

“hanging his left toes” and catching them. At this point, Dr. Smith noted that given Evans’s

3
limitations, he was concerned his pain was more indicative of radiculopathy because he had

failed to make substantial improvement with treatments directed at the hamstring and the

knee. Dr. Smith ordered an EMG/nerve conduction study of Evans’s left lower extremity

to rule out radiculopathy. The EMG was performed on February 17 and came back as

normal. Thereafter, Evans returned to Dr. Smith, who noted that there was nothing he

could do from a surgical standpoint but opined that Evans would best be served by having a

functional capacity evaluation (FCE) and an impairment rating.

At the hearing before the administrative law judge (ALJ), there was discussion and

testimony regarding the FCE. The ALJ noted, “While there was some indication on [Evans’s]

part that this FCE was suggested by the [ARDOT], it is clear from a review of Dr. Smith’s

March 3, 2022 report that he recommended the FCE.” Evans did not undergo an FCE;

nevertheless, the ARDOT voluntarily paid Evans permanent partial-disability (PPD) benefits

for 7 percent permanent anatomical impairment to the left lower extremity.

Evans testified that after returning to work for ARDOT, he had a second incident—

sometime in April 2022, he was walking up and down an embankment under a bridge when

his hamstring began to hurt and “the back of my knee just felt like it opened up like there

wasn’t nothing holding it. It got to hurting and popping.” ARDOT instructed Evans to

complete additional paperwork regarding the second incident; however, Evans contends that

his issues are simply a continuation of the August 18, 2021 injury.

Evans returned to see Dr. Smith on April 19. Dr. Smith noted that because Evans

was having mechanical symptoms in his knee, he was concerned that there might be some

4
meniscal pathology, and he ordered a repeat MRI scan of Evans’s left knee. The MRI was

performed on May 4, and it showed no evidence of internal derangement. Nevertheless, Dr.

Smith recommended that Evans undergo a diagnostic arthroscopic procedure. Although

Evans had undergone two MRIs that were both normal, Dr. Smith noted that Evans

continued to have mechanical symptoms in his left knee. The procedure was performed on

May 18, 2022, and Dr. Smith noted in his operative report that Evans’s postoperative

diagnosis was anterior fat pad impingement, patellar chondromalacia, and medial-plica

syndrome.

Subsequent reports from Dr. Smith indicate that following the surgical procedure,

Evans’s knee was “1000 times better” and “excellent.” However, Dr. Smith noted that Evans

continued to have problems in his posterior thigh and hamstrings. In his September 13,

2022 report, Dr. Smith recommended that Evans undergo an evaluation for his lumbar

spine. Specifically, Dr. Smith noted, “I would like to work up his back starting with lumbar

spine xrays and lumbar spine MRI.” The lumbar spine MRI was performed on September

29, 2022, and the report contained the following:

1. Mild-moderate degenerative change throughout the lumbar spine.

2. Small broad-based disc protrusion eccentric to the right at L5-S1.

Following the MRI scan, Evans returned to Dr. Smith on October 11. At that time

Dr. Smith again opined that Evans’s problems might be related to his back:

I am somewhat concerned that all this is really more related to his back. We had a
long discussion about this. I think it would be wise for us to get him set up with pain
management for a trial of lumbar epidural steroid injections to assess how his left

5
lower extremity responds. With regard to left lower extremity, I do not have any
further surgical interventions, but I am happy to see him through the results of his
lumbar spine injections.

On November 16, 2022, Evans was evaluated by Dr. Natalie Strickland, a pain-

management specialist. Dr. Strickland diagnosed Evans as suffering from lumbar radicular

pain; lumbar herniated disc; spondylosis of lumbosacral region without myelopathy or

radiculopathy; and chronic bilateral low back pain without sciatica. Dr. Strickland gave

Evans a lumbar epidural steroid injection at the L5-S1 level.

Evans returned to Dr. Smith on December 13, 2022, and informed Dr. Smith that

he had not noticed a significant difference in his day-to-day activities following the injections;

however, he reported that his wife felt like he had slept better the last several nights. Dr.

Smith stated:

We thought he had his hamstring injury. I did not feel that surgical intervention was
warranted. It has taken him a long time, he has been dealing with it for a year. We
were concerned that this might be more of a lumbar radiculopathy type picture.

Accordingly, Dr. Smith recommended that Evans continue his follow-up treatment with the

pain-management doctor and see if future injections gave him some relief.

On March 27, 2023, Evans was evaluated by Dr. William Rambo, a neurosurgeon.

Dr. Rambo diagnosed Evans’s condition as lumbar/lumbosacral spondylosis. Dr. Rambo did

not believe Evans needed any surgical intervention but did indicate that he should undergo

an epidural steroid injection at the L4-5 level. Dr. Rambo also indicated that Evans had no

disability or work restrictions with respect to his lumbar spine. The final medical report

from Dr. Smith is dated April 6, 2023, at which time, he recommended that Evans follow

6
up with the pain-management specialist for consideration of an epidural steroid injection at

the L4-5 level. Subsequently, Evans returned to work for ARDOT on April 2, 2023.

Evans filed his claim with the Commission, contending that he suffered a

compensable injury to his left hip, pelvis, and back as a result of the April 18, 2021 incident.

Alternatively, he argued that his back complaints were a compensable consequence of his

left leg injury. Evans sought payment of his related medical treatments as well as TTD

benefits and controverted attorney’s fees.

On March 1, 2023, the parties went before the ALJ for a hearing. ARDOT argued

that Evans did not establish that he sustained a back, hip, or pelvis injury that occurred on

August 18, 2021. ARDOT also argued that Evans gave no notice of having a back injury

before November 16, 2022; thus, he failed to give proper notice of his back injury pursuant

to Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-701 (Repl. 2012). The ALJ disagreed with

ARDOT regarding Evans’s back injury, holding that Evan met his burden of proving that he

suffered a compensable injury to his lumbar spine on August 18, 2021; that he was entitled

to TTD benefits from October 12, 2022, through March 27, 2023; and that Evans did not

fail to give notice pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-701. However, the

ALJ agreed with ARDOT that Evans did not meet his burden of proving that he suffered a

compensable injury to his pelvis or left hip or that those are compensable consequences of

his left leg injury. On June 26, 2023, ARDOT filed its notice of appeal to the full

Commission; and on July 3, Evans filed his notice of cross-appeal.

7
On February 12, 2024, the Commission entered its opinion and order finding that

the ALJ’s decision is supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence, correctly applies

the law, and should be affirmed. Accordingly, the Commission adopted the ALJ’s opinion

in full. One member of the Commission filed a dissenting opinion, finding that Evans failed

to meet his burden of proof that he sustained a compensable injury to his lumbar spine or

that he was entitled to TTD benefits during the time frame awarded by the Commission.

Furthermore, the dissenting commissioner found that Evans failed to give notice of his

alleged lumbar injuries pursuant to statute.

ARDOT filed its timely notice of appeal on March 11, 2024; Evans filed his timely

notice of cross-appeal on March 22. This appeal followed.

II. Standard of Review

It is settled law that on appellate review of workers’-compensation cases, this court

views the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the

Commission’s findings. Maulding v. Price’s Utility Contractors, Inc., 2009 Ark. App. 776, 358

S.W.3d 915. A decision of the Commission is reversed only if we are convinced fair-minded

persons using the same facts could not reach the conclusion reached by the Commission.

Id. In our review, we defer to the Commission in determining the weight of the evidence

and the credibility of the witnesses. Id. The issue is not whether we may have reached a

different conclusion or whether the evidence might have supported a contrary finding. Id.

III. Points on Appeal

8
ARDOT argues on appeal (1) that fair-minded persons with the same facts could not

have reached the same conclusion as the Commission in finding that Evans met his burden

of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a compensable injury to his

lumbar spine on August 18, 2021; (2) that the Commission erred in finding that Evans met

his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to TTD benefits

as a result of the lumbar spine injury; and (3) that fair-minded persons with the same facts

before them could not have reached the same conclusion as the Commission in finding that

Evans did not fail to give notice of his injury pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section

11-9-701.

Evans argues on cross-appeal that the Commission’s denial that he sustained a

compensable injury to his hip and pelvis on August 18, 2021, is not supported by substantial

evidence and should be reversed.

IV. Discussion

When an ALJ’s decision is appealed to the Commission, the Commission does not

sit as an appellate court to review the ALJ’s findings; instead, the Commission makes a de

novo determination on the facts. Jackson v. Smiley Sawmill, LLC, 2019 Ark. App. 235, 576

S.W.3d 43. In carrying out its duty to find the facts, the Commission is required to make

findings of fact, and those findings must contain all the specific facts relevant to the issues

so that the reviewing court may determine whether the Commission has resolved these issues

in conformity with the law. Stallworth v. Hayes Mech., Inc., 2013 Ark. App. 188.

9
Here, the Commission affirmed and adopted the ALJ’s opinion as its own, which it

is permitted to do under Arkansas law. Marshall v. Ark. Dep’t of Corr., 2020 Ark. App. 112,

594 S.W.3d 160. In so doing, the Commission makes the ALJ’s findings and conclusions

the findings and conclusions of the Commission. Id. Therefore, for purposes of our review,

we consider both the ALJ’s opinion and the Commission’s opinion. Id.

A. Back Injury

On appeal, ARDOT contends the Commission erred by finding that Evans proved

by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a lumbar injury on August 18, 2021.

Specifically, it contends that no physician described any injury to Evans’s lumbar spine—with

any reasonable degree of medical certainty—that could have resulted from injuries to his left

lower extremities and that Evans made no complaints of back pain. Accordingly, ARDOT

argues that it would require speculation and conjecture to find that Evans injured his back

on August 18, 2021. In response, Evans maintains that the ALJ’s and the Commission’s

findings are supported by the MRI establishing the presence of abnormalities in his lumbar

spine; Dr. Smith’s continuing concerns that Evans’s pain was back related in nature; and the

fact that he was receiving lumbar spine injections.

Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-102(4)(A)(i) (Supp. 2023) provides that a

“compensable injury” means an accidental injury causing internal or external physical harm

to the body arising out of and in the course of employment and which requires medical

services or results in disability or death. A compensable injury must be established by medical

evidence supported by objective findings. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D). “Objective

10
findings” are those findings that cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient.

Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16)(A)(i). The employee has the burden of proving by a

preponderance of the evidence that he or she sustained a compensable injury. Ark. Code

Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(E)(i).

Here, the ALJ found as follows:

[T]he claimant has offered medical evidence supported by objective findings
establishing a compensable injury to his back. [Evans] underwent a lumbar MRI scan
on September 29, 2022, which revealed a disc protrusion at the L5-S1 level. In
addition, [Evans’s] treating physicians have recommended medical treatment for his
lumbar spine in the form of lumbar epidural steroid injections initially at L5-S1 and
most recently L4-5.

Additionally, the ALJ pointed out that when various treatments to Evans’s knee and

hamstring did not alleviate his symptoms, Dr. Smith stated that he was concerned that

Evans’s current limitations were more indicative of radiculopathy. After his second incident

in April 2022, Dr. Smith performed surgery on Evans’s left knee, which alleviated most of

his left knee complaints; however, Evans continued to have issues with his hamstring.

Thereafter, Dr. Smith recommended that Evans be evaluated for low back issues and

recommended that he have an MRI, “starting with lumbar spine MRI.” As documented by

the ALJ, the MRI revealed degenerative changes and a disc protrusion at the L5-S1 level, and

Evans began receiving epidural steroid injections at the site of the protrusion.

The ALJ also referenced the evaluation of Dr. William Rambo, a neurosurgeon, in its

findings. In his report, Dr. Rambo stated:

Tough situation. He has been thoroughly evaluated and treated since his work-related
injury in 2021. I think his pain is probably multifactorial including hamstring and

11
knee etiologies. Arguing against a radiculopathy is that his pain stops at the knee and
his MRI findings are mild and mostly right-sided. However he does have some mild
lateral recess stenosis at L4-L5. While this is not bad enough to warrant surgical
intervention, it is possible that it is contributing to his clinical picture.

The ALJ concluded, “[Evans] has repeatedly informed his treating physicians that he has had

pain radiating from his beltline down the back of his knee.” Accordingly, the ALJ found

that because Evans’s “complaints have been consistent throughout his treatment and it is

the opinion of his treating physician, Dr. Smith, that those complaints have a radicular

component for which he has recommended medical treatment,” that Evans met his burden

of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a compensable injury to his

low back on August 18, 2021.

It is within the Commission’s province to weigh all the medical evidence, to

determine what is most credible, and to determine its medical soundness and probative

force. USA Truck, Inc. v. Webster, 2020 Ark. App. 226, 599 S.W.3d 368. We have long held

that the Commission’s decision to accept or reject medical opinions and how it resolves

conflicting medical evidence has the force and effect of a jury verdict. Id. In weighing the

evidence, the Commission may not arbitrarily disregard medical evidence or the testimony

of any witness. Id. But when the Commission chooses to accept the testimony of one

physician over that of another, the appellate court is powerless to reverse the decision. Id.

The Commission agreed with the ALJ that Evans’s complaints had remained

consistent throughout, and while Evans did not specifically allege back pain, his complaint

had always been pain from his belt loop down to his knee. Further, the ALJ and the

12
Commission relied on the objective findings of Dr. Smith, treatment by Dr. Strickland of

Evans’s lumbar spine, and Dr. Rambo’s evaluation wherein he opined that it was possible

spinal issues were “contributing to [Evans’s] clinical picture.” While we acknowledge that

Dr. Rambo also noted that medical evidence existed to “argu[e] against radiculopathy,”

namely that Evans’s pain stops at his knee and that MRI findings “are mild and mostly right-

sided,” the weight and interpretation of medical evidence are matters for the Commission.

Thus, we find that substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decision that Evans

proved compensable injuries to his back.

B. TTD Benefits

Next, ARDOT asserts that Evans cannot establish total incapacity to earn wages from

October 12, 2022, through March 27, 2023, for his alleged unscheduled back injury

occurring on August 18, 2021. Specifically, ARDOT argues that because Evans went back

to work in December of 2021, he cannot establish his inability to work while in a healing

period. Thus, ARDOT maintains that the Commission’s award of TTD benefits from

October 12, 2022, through March 27, 2023, must be reversed.

TTD for unscheduled injuries is that period within the healing period in which a

claimant suffers a total incapacity to earn wages. Hope Sch. Dist. v. Wilson, 2011 Ark. App.

219, 382 S.W.3d 782. The healing period is that period for healing of an accidental injury

that continues until an employee is as far restored as the permanent character of his injury

will permit, and the healing period ends when the underlying condition causing the disability

has become stable, and nothing in the way of treatment will improve the condition. Id. The

13
determination of when the healing period has ended is a factual determination for the

Commission. Id.

Regarding the TTD benefits, the ALJ found as follows:

[Evans] underwent surgery on his left knee by Dr. Smith on May 18, 2022. According
to Dr. Smith’s medical report of October 11, 2022, he was concerned at that time
that [Evans’s] complaints were related more to his back and recommended a trial of
epidural steroid injections. Dr. Smith also stated with regard to [Evans’s] left lower
extremity he did not have any further surgical recommendations. Dr. Smith took
[Evans] off work that day to be evaluated for pain management. [ARDOT] ceased
paying [Evans] temporary total disability as of that date because it did not accept
[Evans’s] low back complaints as compensable. However, based upon the finding that
[Evans’s] low back complaints are a compensable injury, Dr. Smith’s continuation of
[Evans’s] off work status as of October 11, 2022 and his continuation of that status
in his report of December 13, 2022, indicates that [Evans] suffered a total incapacity
to earn wages. Likewise, [Evans’s] receipt of medical treatment in the form of epidural
steroid injections establishes that [Evans] remained within his healing period. I find
that [Evans’s] total incapacity to earn wages continued through March 27, 2023. On
that date, [Evans] was evaluated by Dr. Rambo who recommended an epidural steroid
injection at the L4-5 level. However, Dr. Rambo indicated that with respect to
[Evans’s] lumbar spine “I cannot give him any disability or work restrictions.” Evans
apparently returned to work for [ARDOT] a few days after this evaluation by Dr.
Rambo.

We find unpersuasive ARDOT’s argument that Evans could not establish total

incapacity—as a result of his back injury—to earn wages for the period that the ALJ and the

Commission awarded. Dr. Smith took Evans off work on October 11, 2022, and he was not

released by a physician to return to work until Dr. Rambo did so on March 27, 2023.

Furthermore, the Commission’s decision to award TTD benefits is supported by substantial

evidence due to the fact that Evans was referred to Dr. Strickland to receive epidural steroid

injections and pain management for his back; thus, he was in a healing period. Given our

14
standard of review, we affirm the Commission’s decision to award TTD benefits to Evans

beginning on October 11, 2022, through March 27, 2023.

C. Arkansas Code Annotated Section 11-9-701

Finally, ARDOT argues that Evans failed to give proper notice of his back injury as

required by Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-701. Section 11-9-701 states as follows:

(a)(1) Unless an injury either renders the employee physically or mentally unable
to do so, or is made known to the employer immediately after it occurs, the employee
shall report the injury to the employer on a form prescribed or approved by the
Workers’ Compensation Commission and to a person or at a place specified by the
employer, and the employer shall not be responsible for disability, medical, or other
benefits prior to receipt of the employee’s report of injury.

(2) All reporting procedures specified by the employer must be reasonable and
shall afford each employee reasonable notice of the reporting requirements.

(3) The foregoing shall not apply when an employee requires emergency medical
treatment outside the employer’s normal business hours; however, in that event, the
employee shall cause a report of the injury to be made to the employer on the
employer’s next regular business day.

(b)(1) Failure to give the notice shall not bar any claim:

(A) If the employer had knowledge of the injury or death;

(B) If the employee had no knowledge that the condition or disease arose out
of and in the course of the employment; or

(C) If the commission excuses the failure on the grounds that for some
satisfactory reason the notice could not be given.

Here, the ALJ and the Commission cited subdivision (b)(1)(A) and (B) and held that

ARDOT was clearly aware that Evans suffered a compensable injury. Specifically, they found

There is no requirement under A.C.A. § 11-9-701 that [Evans] list every possible
diagnosis which will be made during the course of his treatment. [Evans] testified

15
that he never really had any back pain and it was only his treating physicians who
concluded that his complaints were related to his low back and not entirely to his
hamstring. Nevertheless, [ARDOT] had knowledge of [Evans’s] injury; therefore,
A.C.A. § 11-9-701 is not applicable.

ARDOT maintains that the Commission erred in finding section 11-9-701

inapplicable and argues that it cannot be liable for benefits to Evans before it was notified

of the alleged back injury. However, ARDOT cites no case law in support of this argument,

and we do not consider arguments that are not supported by convincing argument or citation

to authority. This court will also not make appellants’ arguments for them. Sanders v. JLP,

LLC, 2024 Ark. App. 65, at 6, 683 S.W.3d 607, 611. The Commission held that Evans’s

immediate notice of his August 18, 2021 injury was sufficient and that the statute does not

require a claimant to list every possible diagnosis that might stem from a work-related injury—

just the injury itself. Accordingly, we hold that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s and

the Commission’s finding and affirm on this point as well.

D. Cross-Appeal

In his cross-appeal, Evans asserts that the Commission’s finding that he did not meet

his burden of proof that he sustained a compensable injury to his hip and pelvis on August

18, 2021, is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree.

As explained above, we will not reverse the Commission’s decision unless the court

is convinced that fair-minded persons with the same facts before them could not have

reached the same conclusion arrived at by the Commission. Sosa v. Kawneer Co., Inc., 2022

Ark. App. 195, 645 S.W.3d 26. Here, the ALJ and the Commission found that the

16
references to Evans’s hip or pelvis in the medical evidence were related to his compensable

hamstring injury. We hold that fair-minded persons could have reached the same conclusion.

The medical records cited by Evans in his cross-appeal are records evidencing his hamstring

and lower-left-extremity injury, which ARDOT accepted and paid. Evans’s argument is

simply a request for this court to reweigh the evidence, and we are powerless to do so. Hines

v. Cent. Ark. Transit Auth., 2019 Ark. App. 553, 590 S.W.3d 750.

We, therefore, find that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s and the

Commission’s decision that Evans failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence he

suffered a compensable injury to his hip and pelvis on August 18, 2021. Accordingly, we

affirm on cross-appeal.

V. Conclusion

For the above-stated reasons, we affirm the decision of the Commission in its entirety.

Affirmed on direct appeal; affirmed on cross-appeal.

ABRAMSON and THYER, JJ., agree.

Charles H. McLemore, Jr., for separate appellant Public Employee Claims Division.

Walker Law Group, PLC, by: Eddie H. Walker, Jr., for appellee.

17