C.R. Wooten Trucking, Inc v. Donald Chaffin ( 1996 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
C. R. WOOTEN TRUCKING, INC.
AND
OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 2225-95-3 PER CURIAM
FEBRUARY 27, 1996
DONALD CHAFFIN
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS'
COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(S. T. Mullins; Street, Street, Street,
Scott & Bowman, on brief), for appellants.
No brief for appellee.
The sole issue on this appeal is whether the Workers'
Compensation Commission erred in finding that Donald Chaffin
sustained an injury by accident arising out of his employment on
December 9, 1994. Upon reviewing the record and employer's
brief, we conclude that this appeal is without merit.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's decision.
Rule 5A:27.
"Whether an injury arises out of the employment is a mixed
finding 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). Factual findings made by the
commission will be upheld on appeal if supported by credible
evidence. James v. Capital Steel Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 512,
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1989). 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).
The commission held that the assault perpetrated upon
Chaffin during the course of his employment related to the manner
in which he performed his duties and, was therefore, directed
against him as an employee. In so ruling, the commission found
as follows:
[Chaffin's] uncontradicted testimony
establishes that at the time of the incident
of December 9, 1994, [Chaffin] and Richard
Boone, another truck driver, were situated
outside the gate on the approach to the
Paramont mine. [Chaffin] testified that the
truck drivers follow a rule that a driver may
pass another upon approaching the entrance to
the mine and while still outside the gate.
[Chaffin] was following this rule on his way
to retrieving a load of coal. Boone became
angered when [Chaffin] passed him. The two
men had words concerning the passing rule,
and then Boone struck [Chaffin].
Chaffin's testimony constitutes credible evidence to support
these factual findings. In addition, this credible evidence
supports the commission's conclusion that "Boone struck [Chaffin]
because he was angered that [Chaffin] had passed him." Thus, the
evidence proved that Chaffin's injury was causally connected to
the manner in which he performed his work and flowed from his
employment as a rational consequence.
Because credible evidence supports the commission's finding
that Boone directed the assault against Chaffin as an employee,
2
we uphold the commission's ruling that Chaffin's injuries arose
out of his employment. See Park Oil Co. v. Parham, 1 Va. App.
166, 168, 336 S.E.2d 531, 532 (1985), and Farmers Mfg. Co. v.
Warfel, 144 Va. 98, 101-03, 131 S.E. 240, 241 (1926).
For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
3