Tamika C. Harris v. Target Stores ( 2001 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elder, Bray and Senior Judge Overton
TAMIKA C. HARRIS
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. Record No. 2394-00-3 PER CURIAM
JANUARY 30, 2001
TARGET STORES AND
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Tamika C. Harris, on briefs), pro se.
(Warren H. Britt; Warren H. Britt, P.C., on
brief), for appellees.
Tamika C. Harris (claimant) contends that the Workers'
Compensation Commission erred in (1) finding that she failed to
prove that she sustained an injury by accident arising out of
and in the course of her employment on September 6, 1999; and
(2) denying her motion for sanctions against Target Stores and
its insurer (hereinafter referred to as "employer"). 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. See Rule 5A:27.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
I. Injury by Accident
On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the prevailing party below. See R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v.
Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). "In
order to carry [the] burden of proving an 'injury by accident,'
a claimant must prove that the cause of [the] injury was an
identifiable incident or sudden precipitating event and that it
resulted in an obvious sudden mechanical or structural change in
the body." Morris v. Morris, 238 Va. 578, 589, 385 S.E.2d 858,
865 (1989) (citations omitted). Unless we can say as a matter
of law that claimant's evidence sustained her burden of proof,
the commission's findings are binding and conclusive upon us.
See Tomko v. Michael's Plastering Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 173
S.E.2d 833, 835 (1970).
The commission ruled that claimant did not prove that she
was injured as a result of a specific incident at work on
September 6, 1999. As the basis for its decision, the
commission made the following findings:
The claimant testified that on
September 6, 1999, she was operating a
triple pallet rider. As she maneuvered the
tines under a stack of pallets, and the
rider came in contact with those pallets,
she experienced a sudden onset of pain.
However, this testimony is inconsistent with
the recorded statement provided by the
claimant on September 16, 1999, as well as
the incident report completed by the
claimant on that date. In neither instance
did the claimant indicate that she sustained
injury from an incident as described in
- 2 -
hearing testimony. Rather, the claimant
wrote that she experienced pain in the right
knee while operating the triple pallet
rider.
Further, the claimant reported
complaints of pain at different times to two
supervisors, [Rick] Parkinson and [Shawn]
Pepple. Both supervisors testified that the
claimant did not report the onset of pain
when the triple pallet rider came in contact
with the stack of pallets. [Tanya] Swarey
testified that she interviewed the claimant
on September 16, 1999, in conjunction with
emergency treatment rendered. She testified
that the claimant denied any trauma, and
stated that there was a gradual increase in
pain during the work shift. This is
consistent with Swarey's contemporaneous
report. Likewise, Dr. [Alan] Richardson did
not record a history of injury due to a
specific incident. This is consistent with
Dr. [Gwo-Jaw] Wang's initial reports. It
was not until October 1999 that any health
care provider recorded a history of injury
essentially consistent with the claimant's
hearing testimony.
. . . The claimant's testimony as to
the occurrence of an incident on September
6, 1999, is contradicted by her own
statements on September 16, 1999, and
reports to different supervisors and health
care providers as to the cause of her
symptoms . . . .
As fact finder, the commission was entitled to accept the
testimony of employer's witnesses and to reject claimant's
hearing testimony that a specific incident occurred. It is well
settled that credibility determinations are within the fact
finder's exclusive purview. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v.
Pierce, 5 Va. App. 374, 381, 363 S.E.2d 433, 437 (1987). In
this instance, the issue of whether claimant sustained an injury
- 3 -
due to a specific identifiable incident at work on September 6,
1999 was entirely dependent upon her credibility. The
commission, in considering the testimony of the witnesses, the
documentary evidence, and the medical histories, found that
claimant's evidence was not sufficient to establish her claim.
In light of the inconsistencies between claimant's testimony and
her prior statements to employer and her health care providers,
we cannot say as a matter of law that her evidence sustained her
burden of proof.
II. Sanctions
In denying claimant's request for sanctions against
employer for alleged misconduct during the discovery process,
the commission found as follows:
The claimant propounded on the employer
various discovery requests prior to the
scheduled hearing in this matter. The
employer responded in a timely fashion,
providing requested information in some
instances, and raising objections to other
requests. The claimant filed a voluminous
motion to compel and motion for sanctions
which was considered by the Deputy
Commissioner. His findings, as reflected in
the Opinion of May 1, 2000, are consistent
with the record in this case. Accordingly,
we find no reversible error in his denial of
the claimant's motions.
We have reviewed the record and claimant's arguments for
sanctions. We find that the commission's findings are amply
supported by the record and that the commission did not abuse
its discretion in denying claimant's request for sanctions.
- 4 -
For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
- 5 -