COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton
CAROLYN V. FREEMAN
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 2479-97-4 PER CURIAM
APRIL 14, 1998
FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Carolyn V. Freeman, pro se, on brief).
No brief for appellee.
Carolyn V. Freeman ("claimant") appeals a decision of the
Workers' Compensation Commission ("commission") suspending her
compensation benefits effective September 25, 1996 and
terminating payment of temporary total disability benefits
effective December 31, 1996. The commission held that (1)
claimant unjustifiably refused to cooperate with vocational
rehabilitation efforts instituted by Fairfax County School Board
("employer"); and (2) her current disability was not causally
related to her compensable December 3, 1993 injury by accident.
Upon reviewing the record and opening brief, we conclude that
this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm
the commission's decision. See Rule 5A:27.
I. Refusal of Vocational Rehabilitation
On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the prevailing party below. See R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990).
Factual findings made by the commission must be upheld by this
Court if supported by credible evidence. See James v. Capitol
Steel Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 488
(1989).
In granting employer's application seeking to suspend
claimant's compensation benefits, the commission found as
follows:
The Deputy Commissioner gave no weight to
the claimant's testimony. She found
[claimant] was not credible based on the
claimant's demeanor. Although the
Commission is not bound by the Deputy
Commissioner's credibility determination,
we do not arbitrarily disregard it. Where
the Deputy Commissioner decides credibility
based on specific observations of the
witness' demeanor and appearance, the
Commission can reverse that finding only if
the substance of the evidence and testimony
permits a different conclusion. The
evidence does not require a contrary
conclusion regarding claimant's
credibility.
We agree with the Deputy Commissioner's
decision that the claimant refused
vocational rehabilitation without
justification. The employer provided many
potential job contacts within the
claimant's residual capacity but
[claimant's] actions effectively sabotaged
the job search effort. The claimant's
failure to wear proper attire to job
interviews, her presentation during those
interviews, her incorrect responses when
completing applications, and her actions
regarding timely responses to potential
employment opportunities evidence her lack
of commitment.
As fact finder, the commission was entitled to accept the
2
testimony of the vocational rehabilitation consultant, Victoria
Barber, regarding claimant's behavior during the job search
efforts and to reject claimant's testimony to the contrary. The
determination of a witness' credibility is within the fact
finder's exclusive purview. See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v.
Pierce, 5 Va. App. 374, 381, 363 S.E.2d 433, 437 (1987). The
commission's findings are amply supported by the medical records
and Barber's testimony. Therefore, those findings are binding
and conclusive on appeal.
II. Disability/Causation
The medical records of claimant's treating orthopedic
surgeon, Dr. Stephen M. Levin, reveal that claimant suffers from
numerous medical problems. Dr. Levin opined that claimant's
sacroiliac joint problem is the only condition caused by the
compensable accident. In his February 4, 1997 deposition, Dr.
Levin testified that the sacroiliac joint problem "was a
treatable and manageable problem. And that was not the limiting
factor for me to send her back to work." In fact, Dr. Levin
testified that taking only the sacroiliac joint problem into
consideration, he would release claimant to her pre-injury work.
Dr. Levin's medical records and testimony constitute
credible evidence from which the commission could reasonably
infer that claimant's current disability was not causally related
to her compensable injury by accident. "Where reasonable
inferences may be drawn from the evidence in support of the
3
commission's factual findings, they will not be disturbed by this
Court on appeal." Hawks v. Henrico County Sch. Bd., 7 Va. App.
398, 404, 374 S.E.2d 695, 698 (1988).
For the reasons stated, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
4