Legal Opinion

Hanson v. Amfuel

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Decided July 3, 1996No. CA 95-364PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Wendell L. Griffen, Judge.

The issue posed by this appeal is whether the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission denying Mary Hanson’s claim for additional medical benefits associated with her March 13, 1989, compensable injury is supported by substantial evidence. Hanson has appealed the Commission’s decision and contends that the decision is not supported by substantial evidence. We have reviewed the record and concluded that substantial evidence exists to support the decision. Therefore, we affirm the Commission.

Appellant was working for appellee on or about March 13, 1989, when…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bradley v. AlumaxCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1995
  2. Hyde v. CM Vending Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1986
  3. MacK v. Tyson Foods, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 1989
  4. Johnson v. Riceland FoodsCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1994

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Williams v. St. Vincent InfirmaryCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1997
  2. Jeter v. B.R. McGinty MechanicalCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1998
  3. Jeter v. B.R. McGinty MechanicalCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1998
  4. Wilson v. Riceland Foods, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API