Joyce Schaar Good v. American Safety Razor Co, etal ( 1995 )


Menu:
  •                     COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present:   Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton
    JOYCE SCHAAR GOOD
    v.   Record No. 1120-95-3                        MEMORANDUM OPINION *
    PER CURIAM
    AMERICAN SAFETY RAZOR COMPANY                     NOVEMBER 14, 1995
    AND
    EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU
    FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
    (Robert B. Armstrong, on brief), for appellant.
    (Matthew W. Broughton; Monica L. Taylor; Gentry,
    Locke, Rakes & Moore, on brief), for appellees.
    Joyce S. Good ("claimant") contends that the Workers'
    Compensation Commission erred in finding that American Safety
    Razor Co. ("employer") proved that Good was able to return to her
    pre-injury work as of October 12, 1993.   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).       "[I]t
    is fundamental that a finding of fact made by the Commission is
    conclusive and binding upon this court on review.      A question
    raised by conflicting medical opinion is a question of fact."
    *
    Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
    designated for publication.
    Commonwealth v. Powell, 
    2 Va. App. 712
    , 714, 
    347 S.E.2d 532
    , 533
    (1986).   "The fact that there is contrary evidence in the record
    is of no consequence if there is credible evidence to support the
    commission's finding."   Wagner Enters., Inc. v. Brooks, 12 Va.
    App. 890, 894, 
    407 S.E.2d 32
    , 35 (1991).
    The commission accepted the opinion of the treating
    physician, Dr. David S. Klein, that claimant was able to perform
    her pre-injury work without restriction as of October 12, 1993.
    Dr. Klein's opinion was based upon his continuous treatment of
    claimant, her normal physical examinations, and his approval of
    the job description submitted by employer.   Dr. Teresa M. Harmon,
    a licensed clinical psychologist, agreed with Dr. Klein's opinion
    that claimant should return to work.   The opinions of Drs. Klein
    and Harmon constitute credible evidence to support the
    commission's decision.
    In its role as fact finder, the commission was entitled to
    give little weight to the medical reports of Dr. James Walker, a
    chiropractor, and to reject the opinion of Dr. Donald P.K. Chan,
    an orthopedic surgeon.   Dr. Walker refused to comment on
    claimant's ability to return to work in November 1993 because he
    was not familiar with her job description.   Dr. Chan, who
    examined the claimant on one occasion and found disability based
    on claimant's subjective complaints, deferred to Dr. Klein's
    judgment as to claimant's ability to work.   "It lies within the
    commission's authority to determine the facts and the weight of
    2
    the evidence, and its findings in that regard, when supported by
    credible evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal."   Rose v.
    Red's Hitch & Trailer Servs., Inc., 
    11 Va. App. 55
    , 60, 
    396 S.E.2d 392
    , 395 (1990).
    For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.
    Affirmed.
    3