COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
SHIRLEY P. KEESEE
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. Record No. 2273-99-3 PER CURIAM
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
WISE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD AND
VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL GROUP
SELF-INSURANCE ASSOCIATION
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(P. Heith Reynolds; Wolfe & Farmer, on
brief), for appellant.
(James R. Hodges; White, Bundy, McElroy,
Hodges, on brief), for appellees.
Shirley P. Keesee contends that the Workers' Compensation
Commission erred in finding that she failed to prove that her
medical treatment after July 17, 1996 and her disability
beginning February 20, 1998 were causally related to her
compensable July 15, 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, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
Unless we can say as a matter of law that Keesee's evidence
sustained her 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 holding that Keesee failed to sustain her burden of
proof, the commission found as follows:
Although [Keesee] testified that she
continuously complained to Dr. [R. Michael]
Moore for a year and a half about her
headaches, dizziness, and nausea, the
extensive medical record reflects otherwise.
[Dr. Moore] frequently treated [Keesee] for
various conditions. Noticeably absent from
Dr. Moore's office notes are the symptoms
which first appeared in February 1998 and
subsequently prompted him to recommend a
neurological evaluation. Indeed [Keesee]
complained of dizziness, but this was on
June 19, 1996, prior to the fall. When Dr.
Moore examined [Keesee] on July 17, 1996,
after the fall, he did not note any loss of
consciousness or any type of knot or head
injury. . . . Contrary to [Keesee's]
testimony, Dr. Moore did not report
complaints of head throbbing or that
[Keesee's] head hit the floor. From October
19, 1996 to January 24, 1998, there was no
indication of headaches or dizziness.
Instead, [Keesee] reported various other
problems . . . . We are not convinced that
she has suffered her current symptoms since
the fall and has consistently reported them
to Dr. Moore.
The first report of symptoms with
neurological implications was on February
19, 1998. . . . Dr. Moore did not link the
symptoms to the fall at this time. Unlike
[Dr. Moore's] initial assessment in July
1996, the February 26, 1998, notes describe
the fall as a head injury and that it
completely knocked [Keesee] out. Contrary
- 2 -
to Dr. Moore's records, Dr. [John]
Stamoulis' initial examination on February
27, 1998, reported that one year ago,
[Keesee] developed dull headaches, radiating
pain, and upper extremity shakiness. Most
significantly, [Dr. Stamoulis] noted that
[Keesee] denied suffering a head
trauma. . . .
. . . We are more persuaded by Dr.
Stamoulis' reluctance to link [Keesee's]
problems to the job injury "considering her
complaints began much after her injury."
Dr. [Paul C.] Peterson's causative link is
based upon the belief that [Keesee] had no
symptoms until the accident and then they
presumably started. As stated, the only
remotely neurologic symptom (dizziness) was
noted prior to the fall and then not again
until 19 months later. Other alleged
related symptoms were not recorded by Dr.
Moore. Further, Dr. Wood clearly disagreed
that [Keesee's] conditions were related to
the July 15, 1996, fall.
The commission's factual findings are amply supported by
the medical records. Those findings support the commission's
conclusion that Keesee's current neurologic complaints did not
begin until at least nineteen months after her July 1996
accident. The commission, as fact finder, was entitled to give
little probative weight to the contrary testimony of Keesee and
her daughter with respect to when Keesee's symptoms began.
Moreover, the commission articulated legitimate reasons for
accepting the opinions of Drs. Stamoulis and Wood and for
rejecting the contrary opinions of Drs. Moore and Peterson.
"Medical evidence is not necessarily conclusive, but is subject
to the commission's consideration and weighing." Hungerford
- 3 -
Mechanical Corp. v. Hobson, 11 Va. App. 675, 677, 401 S.E.2d
213, 215 (1991).
Based upon the lengthy delay between the time of Keesee's
compensable accident and the first documentation of her
neurological complaints and upon the opinions of Drs. Stamoulis
and Wood, we cannot say as a matter of law that Keesee's
evidence sustained her burden of proof.
For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
- 4 -