COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
HOUSEHOLD CREDIT SERVICES
AND
ASSOCIATED INDEMNITY CORPORATION MEMORANDUM OPINION *
PER CURIAM
v. Record No. 1107-96-1 NOVEMBER 12, 1996
LAVERNE S. LAWRENCE
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Daniel E. Lynch; Vasiliki Moudilos; Williams &
Pierce, on brief), for appellants.
(Robert E. Walsh; Matthew H. Kraft; Rutter &
Montagna, on brief), for appellee.
Household Credit Services and its insurer (hereinafter
collectively referred to as "employer") contend that the Workers'
Compensation Commission erred in finding that employer failed to
prove that Laverne S. Lawrence's post-August 25, 1995 disability
was not causally related to her compensable June 16, 1993 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.
"General principles of workman's compensation law provide
that '[i]n an application for review of any award on the ground
of change in condition, the burden is on the party alleging such
change to prove his allegations by a preponderance of the
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
evidence.'" Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Bateman, 4 Va. App.
459, 464, 359 S.E.2d 98, 101 (1987) (quoting Pilot Freight
Carriers, Inc. v. Reeves, 1 Va. App. 435, 438-39, 339 S.E.2d 570,
572 (1986)). Unless we can say as a matter of law that
employer's evidence sustained its burden of proof, the
commission's findings are binding and conclusive upon us. Tomko
v. Michael's Plastering Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 833,
835 (1970).
On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the party prevailing below. R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v.
Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). So
viewed, we note that the commission made the following findings:
Dr. Holden, prior to August 25, last saw
Lawrence on July 6. He signed a disability
statement disabling her as of that date, with
a diagnosis of post coccydynia. On July 30,
he signed the long-term disability claim
statement, in which he clearly related
Lawrence's disability to her industrial
injury. When he wrote his August 25 letter
to the carrier's representative, Dr. Holden
had not again examined the employee.
Thus, . . . any change in his opinion was
purely speculative.
In addition, Dr. Holden's letter is
internally inconsistent. He stated that
"there is the possibility that part of this
prolapsed uterus is causing some of her
problems sitting," and that the automobile
accident "complexed the situation."
(Emphasis added). Dr. Holden admitted that
he had not examined Lawrence for injuries
sustained in the automobile accident.
Therefore, his opinion that "she is not able
to work because of prolapsing uterus and the
automobile accident" lacks logical support.
Further, . . . Dr. Holden's August 25 letter
directly contradicts the opinions he rendered
when he last examined Lawrence on July 6,
2
1995.
In finding that employer failed to meet its burden of
proving that Lawrence's disability after August 25, 1995 was not
related to her compensable work-related injury, the commission
was entitled to reject Dr. Richard Holden's August 25, 1995
report. "Medical evidence is not necessarily conclusive, but is
subject to the commission's consideration and weighing."
Hungerford Mechanical Corp. v. Hobson, 11 Va. App. 675, 677, 401
S.E.2d 213, 214 (1991).
Based upon this record, we cannot say as a matter of law
that the commission erred in finding that Dr. Holden's August 25,
1995 report was insufficient to justify terminating Lawrence's
disability award. Thus, employer failed to meet its burden of
proving that there was no causal link between Lawrence's
post-August 25, 1995 disability and her work injury.
For the reasons stated, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
3