COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Benton and Overton
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia
NORFOLK SHIPBUILDING &
DRYDOCK CORPORATION
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 1257-96-1 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON
NOVEMBER 26, 1996
ARTHUR J. ROBINSON
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
Gerard E. W. Voyer (Donna White Kearney;
Taylor & Walker, P.C., on brief), for
appellant.
John H. Klein (Matthew H. Kraft; Rutter &
Montagna, L.L.P., on brief), for appellee.
Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corporation, the employer,
appeals from an award of benefits to Arthur J. Robinson for an
injury by accident he sustained during his employment. We find
that credible evidence supports the findings of the commission
and affirm the commission.
The parties are fully conversant with the record to this
case, and a recitation of the facts is unnecessary to this
memorandum opinion.
Guided by well-established principles, we construe the
evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing
below. Crisp v. Brown's Tysons Corner Dodge, Inc., 1 Va. App.
503, 504, 339 S.E.2d 916, 916 (1986). "If there is evidence, or
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
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); see Code § 65.2-706.
"In determining whether credible evidence exists," this Court
will 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) (citation omitted). "[A]
determination of causation is a factual finding." Ingersoll-Rand
Co. v. Musick, 7 Va. App. 684, 688, 376 S.E.2d 814, 817 (1989).
The commission found, from the testimony of Robinson and
corroborating medical records, that Robinson injured his knee
during the execution of his job-related duty. The commission
further found that Robinson continues to be partially disabled.
Finally, the commission found that Robinson had adequately
marketed his residual capacity. Because the record contains
credible evidence to support these conclusions, we affirm the
award of the commission.
The commission also held that Robinson was not discharged
for just cause. Not every discharge to which the employer can
assign a reason is a "justified" discharge, and the commission
errs if it does not consider the nature of the conduct leading to
the discharge. Eppling v. Schultz Dining Programs, 18 Va. App.
- 2 -
125, 128-29, 442 S.E.2d 219, 221-22 (1994). The reasons given by
employer in this case at best show a misunderstanding, at worst a
laziness, resulting in slight inconvenience to the employer.
They do not demonstrate "the type of willful misconduct or
misbehavior that, upon termination, justifies a forfeiture of
workers' compensation benefits." Id. at 130, 442 S.E.2d at 222.
Accordingly, the commission's decision is affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 3 -