DIVISION I
BARBARA BINGLE
APPELLANT
v.
QUALITY INN; UNION STANDARD
INSURANCE CO.
APPELLEES
CA04-1142
OCTOBER 11, 2006
A P P E A L
F R O M
T H E
W O R K E R S ’ C O M P E N S A T I O N
COMMISSION
[E907878]
REVERSED and REMANDED in part;
AFFIRMED in part
KAREN R. BAKER, Judge
Appellant Barbara Bingle challenges the decision of the Workers’ Compensation
Commission finding that appellant was able to return to work on August 14, 2001, and that appellees
Quality Inn and Union Standard Insurance Co.’s refusal to pay appellant’s medical bills and
attorney’s fees previously ordered was not willful. We originally ordered rebriefing in this case in
No. CA04-1142 (Apr. 5, 2006). On resubmission, we reverse in part and affirm in part.
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.
Crossett Sch. Dist. v. Gourley, 50 Ark. App. 1, 899 S.W.2d 482 (1995). Substantial evidence is such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Wright
v. ABC Air, Inc., 44 Ark. App. 5, 864 S.W.2d 871 (1993). The issue is not whether we might have
reached a different result or whether the evidence would have supported a contrary finding; even
if a preponderance of the evidence might indicate a contrary result, if reasonable minds could reach
-2-
the Commission’s conclusion, we must affirm its decision. St. Vincent Infirmary Med. Ctr. v. Brown,
53 Ark. App. 30, 917 S.W.2d 550 (1996). The Commission is required to weigh the evidence
impartially without giving the benefit of the doubt to any party. Keller v. L.A. Darling Fixtures, 40
Ark. App. 94, 845 S.W.2d 15 (1992).
The Commission also has the duty of weighing the medical evidence as it does any other
evidence. Roberson v. Waste Mgmt., 58 Ark. App. 11, 944 S.W.2d 858 (1997). T