COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick
GLADYS ARTOLA
v. Record No. 3020-96-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION *
PER CURIAM
SHOPPERS FOOD WAREHOUSE MAY 6, 1997
AND
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY
OF ILLINOIS
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Paul Fiscella, on brief), for appellant.
(Susan A. Evans; Siciliano, Ellis, Dyer &
Boccarosse, on brief), for appellees.
Gladys Artola (claimant) contends that the Workers'
Compensation Commission (commission) erred in finding that (1)
she sustained only a transient knee injury as a result of her
compensable January 28, 1995 injury by accident; and (2) she was
not disabled from work as a result of the January 28, 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. Rule
5A:27.
On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the prevailing party below. 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 claimant tripped
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
and fell at work on January 28, 1995, injuring her right knee.
Employer accepted the accident as compensable, but denied that
claimant suffered any disability or anything more than a
transient knee injury.
On January 30, 1995, claimant sought medical treatment at an
Urgent Care Clinic. Dr. Tesfazion, the treating physician, noted
bruises on claimant's right knee, tenderness, and decreased range
of motion. X-rays of claimant's right knee revealed no
abnormalities. Dr. Tesfazion diagnosed a right knee bruise and
noted no disability from work. On February 2, 1995, claimant
returned to the clinic. Dr. Tesfazion noted "good" range of
motion and no tenderness in claimant's right knee. He diagnosed
a healing right knee bruise, and noted that claimant was not
disabled from work.
On February 24, 1995, claimant sought treatment from Dr.
William Berman. At that time, claimant reported she had
sustained a February 19, 1995 work-related injury to her neck and
upper back. Dr. Berman noted that claimant had sustained four
other injuries, including the January 28, 1995 injury to her
right knee. However, Dr. Berman did not note any complaints by
claimant concerning her right knee during the February 24, 1995
office visit, nor did his examination reveal any problems with
the knee. Rather, the February 24, 1995 office visit focused on
claimant's neck and upper back pain and numbness in her hands and
feet.
2
On May 19, 1995, claimant returned to Dr. Berman. He noted
that claimant complained of a different problem, this one
concerning the January 28, 1995 injury to her knees. Claimant
complained of periodic swelling and knee pain, more on the right
than the left. Dr. Berman diagnosed right knee patellar
tendinitis and bursitis. He noted that claimant's left knee was
entirely normal. Dr. Berman prescribed anti-inflammatory
medication, a knee support, and a short course of physical
therapy. He advised claimant she could continue to work
full-duty as long as she wore the knee support.
Claimant did not return to Dr. Berman until September 22,
1995. At that time, she complained of increased knee discomfort
and instability. Dr. Berman noted that claimant had been excused
from work by Dr. Stark, her neurologist, due to recurrent
dizziness and headaches. Dr. Berman referred claimant for an MRI
of the right knee, and he advised her that she could perform
light-duty work with certain restrictions. An MRI of claimant's
right knee, performed on September 22, 1995, revealed "[n]o
evidence of meniscal or ligamentous injury." Rather, the MRI
showed a "tiny degenerative cyst . . . in the dorsal aspect of
the patella" and "a localized area of fibrous dysplasia."
On March 1, 1996, Dr. Berman examined claimant once again to
assess the condition of her knees. Claimant still had
significant complaints of knee pain, particularly when climbing.
Dr. Berman referred claimant for an orthopedic consult to
3
determine if the cyst required surgery. Dr. Berman opined that
claimant could remain on light-duty work status.
On April 4, 1996, Dr. Wayne Lindsey examined claimant's
knees upon referral from Dr. Berman. Dr. Lindsey noted that the
MRI revealed degenerative changes without evidence of meniscal
pathology. Dr. Lindsey assessed a "[p]robable patellar
chondromalacia aggravated by tight hamstrings." He recommended
that claimant change medications and start hamstring stretching
exercises. On April 5, 1996, Dr. Berman continued claimant's
light-duty status with certain restrictions. On April 25, 1996,
Dr. Lindsey injected claimant's knee, and advised that she could
continue light-duty work from an orthopedic standpoint.
Based upon this record, the commission found that claimant
failed to prove anything more than a transient right knee injury
as a result of the January 28, 1995 accident. The commission
awarded claimant medical expenses for the January 30, 1995 and
February 2, 1995 visits to the Urgent Care Clinic. In so
holding, the commission found as follows:
There is no reliable medical evidence
that shows the claimant's present knee
condition more probably than not results from
the accident on January 28, 1995. Dr. Berman
historically notes the date of the accident
alleged by the claimant, but he does not in
his reports otherwise even suggest that the
present knee problems are related to that
fall. We cannot infer such a relationship
when the initial medical evidence does not
show a more serious injury and in light of an
intervening medical report that is
inconsistent with claimant's testimony of a
continuous and significant symptomatic
injury. In this regard, we consider Dr.
4
Berman's report of examination on February
24, 1995 of a head injury that allegedly
occurred at work five days earlier. Dr.
Berman historically summarized a number of
prior accidents and injuries, including one
on January 28, 1995 "to both knees with
symptoms more pronounced on the right side."
The physician then performed a detailed and
comprehensive physical examination, speaking
with the claimant in her native Spanish
language, but recorded no knee problems.
The commission's findings are amply supported by the initial
medical records, which showed that claimant suffered a bruise to
her right knee of short duration, with no causally-related
disability from work. On February 2, 1995, claimant's right knee
had good range of motion, no tenderness, and a healing bruise.
After February 2, 1995, claimant did not seek medical treatment
for a knee problem again until May 19, 1995. Based upon the
totality of the medical records, the commission could reasonably
infer that after May 19, 1995, claimant suffered from a
degenerative condition unrelated to the January 28, 1995 injury
by accident. "If there is 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 these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
5
Gladys Artola v. Shoppers Food Warehouse
Combined Opinion