COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton
ECONO CLEAN JANITORIAL SERVICE
AND
TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE COMPANY
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 0874-97-1 PER CURIAM
AUGUST 12, 1997
FLORA EMERSON
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Jennifer G. Marwitz; Law Offices of Richard
A. Hobson, on brief), for appellants.
(W. Mark Broadwell, on brief), for appellee.
Econo Clean Janitorial Service and its insurer (hereinafter
collectively referred to as "employer") appeal a decision of the
Workers' Compensation Commission (commission) awarding benefits
to Flora Emerson (claimant). Employer contends that the
commission erred in finding that claimant proved she sustained an
injury by accident arising out of her employment on July 5, 1996.
Finding no error, we affirm the commission's decision.
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). "To
prove the 'arising out of' element, [in a case involving injuries
sustained from falling down stairs at work,] [claimant] must show
that a condition of the workplace either caused or contributed to
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
her fall." Southside Virginia Training Ctr. v. Shell, 20 Va.
App. 199, 202, 455 S.E.2d 761, 763 (1995) (citing County of
Chesterfield v. Johnson, 237 Va. 180, 184, 376 S.E.2d 73, 76
(1989)). "Whether an injury arises out of the employment is a
mixed question of law and fact and is reviewable by the appellate
court." Plumb Rite Plumbing Serv. v. Barbour, 8 Va. App. 482,
483, 382 S.E.2d 305, 305 (1989).
In ruling that claimant's injuries arose out of her
employment, the commission found as follows:
The claimant was descending an outdoor
concrete stairwell at night carrying cleaning
supplies. We find credible the claimant's
testimony that she could not stop her fall
because she could not hang onto the railing
due to the fact that she was carrying
cleaning bottles, towels, and a broom and
dustpan. We find that the claimant has
adequately explained any discrepancies
between her testimony and her recorded
statement. Although she neglected to mention
the broom and dustpan in her recorded
statement, the claimant is certain she had
them because she was going to sweep the weigh
station. With regard to the railing, the
claimant explained that she tried to hold
onto the railing when she slipped, but
because of the items she was carrying she
could not stop her fall. The claimant heard
her knee pop and felt pain when she landed on
it.
Claimant's testimony constitutes credible evidence to
support the commission's factual findings. Based upon these
findings, the commission could conclude that
[i]t is reasonable to infer that if she had
not been carrying the cleaning supplies the
claimant could have prevented the injury, and
we so find because the claimant has credibly
testified to this effect. . . . The carrying
2
of the spray bottles, paper towels, broom,
and dustpan prevented the claimant from
stopping her fall, resulting in the knee
injury.
"Where reasonable inferences may be drawn from the evidence
in support of the 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). Here, the
evidence supported an inference that conditions of the workplace,
i.e., the carrying of the various cleaning supplies, either
caused or contributed to claimant's injury.
Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
3