COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elder, Bray and Senior Judge Overton
DARRELL M. VARNER
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. Record No. 2332-00-4 PER CURIAM
JANUARY 23, 2001
HAMILTON IRON WORKS, INC. AND
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Lawrence J. Pascal; Ashcraft & Gerel, on
brief), for appellant.
(Roger S. Mackey; Law Offices of Roger S.
Mackey, on brief), for appellees.
Darrell M. Varner (claimant) contends that the Workers'
Compensation Commission erred in finding that he failed to prove
that his cerebral hematoma and resulting disability were
causally related to his compensable May 6, 1996 injury by
accident. 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).
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
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).
In affirming the deputy commissioner's decision that
claimant failed to establish a causal connection between his
May 6, 1996 fall at work and his subsequent June 1, 1996 fall
and related disability, the commission found as follows:
[N]o medical report authored prior to the
June 1, 1996 incident references an injury
to the head as a result of the May 6, 1996,
accident or notes any complaints of
lightheadedness or dizziness between May 6,
and June 1, 1996. During this period, the
claimant was examined on four occasions by
two different physicians, Dr. [Roger]
Gisolfi and Dr. [Robert] Kitchen.
Dr. Gisolfi, the physician who examined
the claimant on May 13, 23, and 30, 1996,
indicated in a July 19, 1996, letter to the
insurer that the claimant suffered from an
unrelated intracerebral hemorrhage. Dr.
[Fraser] Henderson, the neurosurgeon who
performed the surgery for the left cerebral
hematoma on June 1, 1996, noted an
eight-hour history of dizziness. Dr.
Henderson's initial assessment was that the
hematoma was hypertensive in origin. His
subsequent revised report linking the
hematoma to the May 6, 1996, fall was
premised on the assumption that the claimant
had continuous symptoms of lightheadedness
and dizziness from the time of the fall to
the time of the diagnosis of the hemorrhage
on June 1, 1996. This assumption is
unsupported by the contemporaneous medical
records. Dr. Henderson's reports fail to
indicate that he reviewed the pre-June 1,
1996 medical records.
- 2 -
The commission's factual findings are fully supported by
the record. Based upon the lack of any support in the
contemporaneous medical records for the change in Dr.
Henderson's initial opinion regarding causation, and the
contrary medical opinions of Dr. Gisolfi, Dr. Ramon B. Jenkins,
and Dr. Bruce J. Ammerman, the commission, as fact finder, was
entitled to reject Dr. Henderson's opinions. "Medical evidence
is not necessarily conclusive, but is subject to the
commission's consideration and weighing." Hungerford Mechanical
Corp. v. Hobson, 11 Va. App. 675, 677, 401 S.E.2d 213, 215
(1991). "Questions raised by conflicting medical opinions must
be decided by the commission." Penley v. Island Creek Coal Co.,
8 Va. App. 310, 318, 381 S.E.2d 231, 236 (1989).
Moreover, in light of the lack of "medical documentation of
any head trauma or related symptoms between May 6, 1996, and the
June 1, 1996, fall at home," the commission, as fact finder, was
entitled to give little probative weight to the testimony of
claimant's wife and to conclude that "the claimant has [not]
proven a causal relationship between the fall of May 6, 1996, at
work and his cerebral hematoma."
Based upon this record, we cannot find as a matter of law
that claimant's evidence sustained his burden of proof.
Accordingly, the commission's findings are binding and
conclusive upon us on appeal.
- 3 -
For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
- 4 -