COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
HERITAGE ELECTRICAL CORPORATION
AND
FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 2475-97-2 PER CURIAM
MARCH 10, 1998
CHRISTOPHER MILES LAINE
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Robert M. McAdam; David W. Hearn; Wooten &
Hart, on briefs), for appellants.
(William R. Keown; Beddow, Marley &
Associates, on brief), for appellee.
Heritage Electrical Corporation and its insurer (hereinafter
referred to as "employer") contend that the Workers' Compensation
Commission erred in finding that Christopher Miles Laine proved
that (1) he sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in
the course of his employment on June 24, 1995; and (2) his
disability after June 24, 1995 was causally related to the June
24, 1995 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.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
I. Injury by Accident
In affirming the deputy commissioner's finding that Laine
suffered an injury by accident on June 24, 1995, the commission
found as follows:
[Laine] has testified to two events which
resulted in hip pain going down into his leg.
He has stated that he assumed that the
activity of climbing down from the ceiling
onto the ladder was the cause of his problem
and, as a result, initially filed his claim
based on that activity. In spite of this,
the evidence does support the finding by the
Deputy Commissioner that [Laine] sustained an
injury by accident on June 24, 1995. The act
of lifting the roll of wire and immediately
experiencing the onset of symptoms
constitutes an accident. There is
corroborating evidence of this occurrence.
[Robert] Perrot testified that [Laine] told
him on that evening "that his butt was
hurting." In a telephone conversation on
July 5, 1995, he gave information for the
employer to complete the First Report of
Accident, which information was consistent
with the accident on June 24, 1995. Although
there is some disparity as to details, the
June 24 accident history is generally
consistent with the history given to Dr.
[David L.] Hudson who initially evaluated
[Laine]. That history refers to lifting and
stocking at work. While the time frame of
that history is consistent with the ladder
occurrence, the description is more
consistent with the lifting incident on June
24, 1995. These imprecise histories were
given at times when [Laine] would not be
focusing on precision for legal reasons, but
would be more concerned with his general
perception of what was going on between
activities and physical complaints.
"In order to carry [the] burden of proving an 'injury by
accident,' a claimant must prove that the cause of [the] injury
was an identifiable incident or sudden precipitating event and
2
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). "In determining whether credible
evidence exists, the appellate court does not retry the facts,
reweigh the preponderance of the evidence, or make its own
determination of the credibility of the witnesses." Wagner
Enters., Inc. v. Brooks, 12 Va. App. 890, 894, 407 S.E.2d 32, 35
(1991). "The fact that there is contrary evidence in the record
is of no consequence if there is credible evidence to support the
commission's finding." Id.
In rendering its decision, the commission considered the
various medical histories, Laine's testimony, his statements to
employer, and the testimony of his co-workers. The commission
resolved any inconsistencies in this evidence in favor of Laine.
Laine's testimony, which is corroborated by contemporaneous
medical reports and Laine's statements to Perrot and the
employer, provides credible evidence to support the commission's
finding that he proved an identifiable incident. Laine's
testimony and the medical evidence proved that the June 24, 1995
incident caused a sudden mechanical change in his body. The
commission so found. Thus, those findings are conclusive on this
appeal. See James v. Capitol Steel Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 512,
515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1989). Those findings are sufficient
to prove an injury by accident arising out of employment.
II. Causation/Disability
3
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). "The
actual determination of causation is a factual finding that will
not be disturbed on appeal if there is credible evidence to
support the finding." Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Musick, 7 Va. App.
684, 688, 376 S.E.2d 814, 817 (1989).
In holding that the evidence proved a causal relationship
between the accident of June 24, 1995 and Laine's disability, the
commission found as follows:
At the time of the first medical treatment,
Dr. Hudson received the lifting history.
Sciatica was diagnosed. There is no history
of prior back problems. Dr. Hudson felt that
there was possibly nerve root impingement
which would be secondary to a bulging disc.
On July 3, 1995, he referred [Laine] to an
orthopedic specialist for severe sciatica,
listing an injury date of June 27, 1995.
This was based on the lifting history. When
the record is considered in its entirety, it
is evident that [Laine's] condition commenced
after the lifting incident on June 24, 1995.
The medical finding of sciatica and the more
refined diagnosis of a herniated disc are
consistent with that accident description and
the medical treatment. The medical evidence
in conjunction with the claimant's testimony
is sufficient to establish causation.
Dr. Hudson's medical records and Laine's testimony provide
credible evidence to support the commission's findings. Based
upon the totality of the medical records and Laine's testimony,
the commission could reasonably infer that Laine's disability was
caused by the June 24, 1995 injury by accident. "If there is
4
evidence, or reasonable inferences can be drawn from the
evidence, to support the Commission's findings, they will not be
disturbed on review, even though there is evidence in the record
to support a contrary finding." Morris v. Badger Powhatan/Figgie
Int'l, Inc., 3 Va. App. 276, 279, 348 S.E.2d 876, 877 (1986).
For the reasons stated, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
5