injuries, except her aff concerning the degree of disability associated with the preexisting condition versus that arising from the falls, the Commission was not compelled to believe it and could reject all or any part of it which it did not consider credible. Hutchinson v. Tri-State Motor Transit Co., 721 S.W.2d 158, 162 (Mo.App. S.D.1986). “The degree of disability resulting from an injury and preexisting conditions are questions of fact resolved by the Commission.” Carter v. Frito-Lay, 913 S.W.2d 341, 343 (Mo.App. E.D.1995). “The decision to accept one of two conflicting medical opinions is an issue of fact for the Commission.” Johnson v. Denton Constr. Co., 911 S.W.2d 286, 288 (Mo.banc 1995); see also Duncan v. Springfield R-12 Sch. Dist., 897 S.W.2d 108, 113 (Mo.App. S.D.1995) (<HOLDING>). The Commission chose to accept the testimony
holding that the weight of a classification determination depends upon all those factors which give it power to persuade holding that the interests of two insurance companies were adverse under wis stat  102231a 19891990 relating to workers compensation when the respective liability of the two insurance companies depends on the determination of the date of injury holding that under the doctrine the district court should have stayed the diversityjurisdiction case pending the state workers compensation commissions final decision on whether the defendant properly paid certain workers compensation claims holding that wjhere the right to compensation depends upon which of two conflicting medical theories should be accepted the issue is peculiarly for commissions determination holding that deference to the guidelines depends on the thoroughness of the commissions analysis and the validity of its reasoning