COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
BRENDA McCROUAH WILLIS
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 0480-97-3 PER CURIAM
JULY 29, 1997
CARILION HEALTH SYSTEM AND
PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURING
ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Rhonda L. Overstreet; Lumsden & Overstreet,
on brief), for appellant.
(Richard D. Lucas; Carter, Brown & Osborne,
on brief), for appellees.
Brenda Willis contends that the Workers' Compensation
Commission (commission) erred in finding that she failed to prove
that her back condition was causally related to her compensable
September 29, 1994 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. Rule 5A:27.
On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the prevailing party. See R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. Mullins,
10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990).
So viewed, the evidence established that on September 29,
1994, while entering her workplace, Willis sustained injuries
when she tripped on a defect in the sidewalk. Willis sought
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
treatment at an emergency room, complaining of right ankle and
knee pain. Dr. George D. Henning, an orthopedic surgeon, treated
Willis on three occasions between October 20 and December 1, 1994
for a right ankle sprain. Willis did not complain of back pain
during any of these office visits. However, Willis testified
that her back symptoms began at the time of the September 29,
1994 accident. On June 7, 1996, Dr. Henning opined that Willis
did not sustain a back injury as a result of her September 29,
1994 fall, but that her back condition was an ongoing problem
unrelated to the fall.
On June 14, 1995, Willis came under the care of Dr. Ward W.
Stevens, a neurosurgeon. Dr. Stevens performed surgery on
Willis' back on two occasions. After learning of Willis' delay
in reporting her back pain, Dr. Stevens agreed during his
deposition testimony that he would have to defer to Dr. Henning's
opinion regarding causation.
In denying Willis' application, the commission found as
follows:
The burden is upon [Willis] to establish
by a preponderance of the evidence that she
sustained some back injury, or aggravation of
a preexisting condition, in the compensable
accident. She claims back pain at the time
of the fall and explains the delay of at
least two months in mentioning these symptoms
to her employer. However, in the final
analysis, the treating physicians do not
relate her back condition to the fall. In
this regard, we also note the employer's
evidence as to the back complaints, but even
at that time, the employer denies any notice
that these complaints were caused by the
earlier fall.
2
Based upon the delay in Willis' reporting of her back pain
and upon the lack of any persuasive medical evidence causally
connecting her back pain to the compensable industrial accident,
we cannot say as a matter of law that Willis' evidence sustained
her burden of proof. Accordingly, 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).
For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
3