Appellee's husband was employed at the appellant's slaughterhouse operation. The commission agreed with the finding of the hearing judge that the deceased was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of his death and awarded death benefits to the appellee.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the award on the ground that the findings of the commission were supported by substantial evidence. We granted certiorari to clarify two issues: 1 whether there are two evidentiary rules in Arkansas regarding the establishment of the agency relationship, and 2 whether hearsay evidence alone constitutes sufficient "competent evidence" to support an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
See also Ark. We review the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the findings of the commission, and the commission's findings will be upheld if there is any substantial evidence to support their action even if the preponderance of the evidence would indicate a different result. Barksdale Lumber Co.
McAnally, Ark. Peabody Testing Services, Ark. Doubtful cases are resolved in favor of the claimant, and we are not concerned with the weight of the evidence nor the credibility of the witnesses since we do not review the case de novo.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/hawthorne-effect.asp_final-a9906b8da06e4d28a3b049de3d81149f.png "Adult Guide in Hawthorne")
Processing, Inc. Servold, Ark. Appellant first contends that the commission erred in finding that the appellee's decedent's death arose out of and in the course of his employment because the finding was not supported by any substantial evidence. The appellant argues that the only evidence regarding whether the decedent was acting within the scope of his employment was hearsay testimony by a local attorney as to a conversation he had with appellant's son the day following the accident.
