Billy H. Vance v. Keen Mountain Correctional Center ( 1995 )


Menu:
  •                      COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present:    Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
    BILLY H. VANCE
    MEMORANDUM OPINION *
    v.   Record No. 2604-94-3                           PER CURIAM
    JUNE 27, 1995
    KEEN MOUNTAIN CORRECTIONAL CENTER
    FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS'
    COMPENSATION COMMISSION
    (John M. Heuser; John A. Martin; Browning & Sharp, on
    brief), for appellant.
    (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General; James W.
    Osborne, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for
    appellee.
    Billy H. Vance contends that the Workers' Compensation
    Commission erred in finding that he failed to prove that he was
    unable to return to his pre-injury work due to a psychiatric
    condition causally related to his March 11, 1991 compensable
    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.
    "[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."     Commonwealth v. Powell, 
    2 Va. App. 712
    , 714, 
    347 S.E.2d 532
    , 533 (1986).    In cases of conflicting medical evidence,
    *
    Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
    designated for publication.
    "[t]he general rule is that when an attending physician is
    positive in his diagnosis . . . , great weight will be given by
    the courts to his opinion."    McPeek v. P.W. & W. Coal Co., 
    210 Va. 185
    , 188, 
    169 S.E.2d 443
    , 445 (1969).
    "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
    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 Vance's
    evidence sustained his 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).
    The commission accepted the opinion of Dr. Glenn Freeman,
    the treating physician, who opined that Vance could not have
    "injured his psyche as a result of a fall onto his buttock and
    knee."   Dr. Freeman did not believe that Vance suffered any
    significant psychological stress as a result of the
    rehabilitation he was undergoing for his compensable injuries.
    Dr. Freeman stated that any psychological problems that Vance was
    experiencing were not causally related to his compensable injury
    by accident.   The commission rejected the contrary opinion of Dr.
    Morgan E. Scott, a psychiatrist who examined Vance at the
    2
    employer's request.   Two additional psychiatrists who examined
    Vance, Drs. Stephen Fulmer and David Forester, did not render an
    opinion concerning causation.   Dr. Freeman's opinion constitutes
    credible evidence to support the commission's decision.    "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).
    Accordingly, we cannot say as a matter of law that Vance's
    evidence sustained his burden of proof.    Therefore, the decision
    is affirmed.
    Affirmed.
    3