COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Annunziata, Agee and Senior Judge Coleman
RONALD LAWSON
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. Record No. 0911-01-2 PER CURIAM
SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
HANOVER JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL CENTER/
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Timothy J. Healy, on brief), for appellant.
(Randolph A. Beales, Acting Attorney General;
Gregory E. Lucyk, Senior Assistant Attorney
General; Catherine Crooks Hill, Assistant
Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Ronald Lawson (claimant) contends that the Workers'
Compensation Commission erred in finding that he failed to prove
that he sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in
the course of his employment on July 21, 1999. Upon reviewing
the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this
appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the
commission's decision. See Rule 5A:27.
On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the prevailing party below. See R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v.
Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). "In
order to carry [the] burden of proving an 'injury by accident,'
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
a claimant must prove that the cause of [the] injury was an
identifiable incident or sudden precipitating event and that it
resulted in an obvious sudden mechanical or structural change in
the body." Morris v. Morris, 238 Va. 578, 589, 385 S.E.2d 858,
865 (1989) (citations omitted). Unless we can say as a matter
of law that claimant's evidence sustained his burden of proof,
the commission's findings are binding and conclusive upon us.
See Tomko v. Michael's Plastering Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 173
S.E.2d 833, 835 (1970).
The commission ruled that claimant did not prove that he
was injured as a result of a specific incident at work on July
21, 1999. In so ruling, the commission summarized claimant's
testimony as follows:
[C]laimant candidly testified at the hearing
that he was unaware of stepping on any nail,
screw, or other construction debris during
his workday on July 21, 1999. The claimant
testified that he dressed for work at home,
walked down two flights of stairs and across
a parking lot to his car, and then drove
directly to work. After completing his
eight-hour shift, the claimant drove back to
his home, walked across the parking lot and
up two flights of stairs before entering his
apartment. The claimant did not notice the
blood in his left sock until after he
arrived home and removed his shoes, and
later observed a small hole in the sole of
his left shoe. The claimant himself
initially thought that the blood was from "a
break in the skin from walking so much that
day," and only later speculated that he
"possibly" stepped on a nail or some other
sharp object in the area around Unit 15. In
this regard, we note that the claimant's
admitted loss of feeling in his left foot,
- 2 -
resulting from his bilateral foot
neuropathy, made it impossible for even the
claimant to know precisely when or where he
suffered the puncture wound.
Based upon these factual findings, which are supported by
claimant's testimony, the commission was entitled to conclude
that "the mere speculative possibility that the puncture wound
occurred while the claimant was working on July 21, 1999, does
not carry his burden of proving by a preponderance of the
evidence that he experienced a compensable injury by accident."
In addition, as fact finder, the commission was entitled to give
little probative weight to Dr. John W. Snoddy's opinions because
they were based upon the speculative possibility that claimant
injured his foot while working on July 21, 1999.
In light of the lack of any evidence, beyond conjecture,
that claimant's injury was caused by his stepping on a sharp
object at work, we cannot find as a matter of law that
claimant's evidence sustained his burden of proving that his
injury was caused by a specific identifiable incident or sudden
precipitating event occurring at work on July 21, 1999.
For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
- 3 -