Nottoway Corr Center v. Minnie Rowland Bradner ( 2003 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judge Elder and
Senior Judge Coleman
Argued at Salem, Virginia
NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER/
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. Record No. 2193-02-3 JUDGE SAMUEL W. COLEMAN III
MAY 6, 2003
MINNIE ROWLAND BRADNER
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
Scott John Fitzgerald, Assistant Attorney
General (Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General;
Judith Williams Jagdmann, Deputy Attorney
General; Edward M. Macon, Senior Assistant
Attorney General, on brief), for appellant.
No brief or argument for appellee.
Nottoway Correctional Center/Commonwealth of Virginia
(employer) appeals a decision of the Workers' Compensation
Commission awarding compensation benefits to Minnie Rowland
Bradner (claimant). Employer contends the commission erred in
finding that claimant proved she sustained an injury by accident
arising out of her employment on March 5, 2000. Finding no
error, we affirm.
On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the prevailing party below. R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990).
"Whether an injury arises out of the employment is a mixed
question 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). "The phrase arising 'out of'
refers to the origin or cause of the injury." County of
Chesterfield v. Johnson, 237 Va. 180, 183, 376 S.E.2d 73, 74
(1989). An injury arises out of the employment:
when there is apparent to the rational mind
upon consideration of all the circumstances,
a causal connection between the conditions
under which the work is required to be
performed and the resulting injury. Under
this test, if the injury can be seen to have
followed as a natural incident of the work
and to have been contemplated by a
reasonable person familiar with the whole
situation as a result of the exposure
occasioned by the nature of the employment,
then it arises "out of" the employment. But
. . . [t]he causative danger must be
peculiar to the work and not common to the
neighborhood. . . . [I]t must appear to have
had its origin in a risk connected with the
employment, and to have flowed from that
source as a rational consequence.
Baggett & Meador Cos. v. Dillon, 219 Va. 633, 637-38, 248 S.E.2d
819, 822 (1978). To prevail, claimant must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence "that the conditions of the
workplace or that some significant work related exertion caused
the injury." Plumb Rite, 8 Va. App. at 484, 382 S.E.2d at 306.
In ruling that claimant met her burden of proof, the
commission found as follows:
- 2 -
[T]he claimant has consistently stated that
the iron grids on the stairs caught her shoe
and caused her to fall. Since she testified
that the grids covered the stairs and that
even the landing of the particular stairs
she used had holes in it, we do not find it
fatal to her claim that she could not
identify the particular step on which she
tripped. The evidence clearly reflects that
the claimant tripped as a result of her shoe
getting caught on the stair grid work. The
iron grid work on the stairs constituted a
workplace condition that either caused or
contributed to her fall.
The commission considered all of the evidence and concluded
that the nature of the steps, which the claimant described as
iron "grid work" or "little slot things . . . the little grate"
that "the toe of [her] left shoe caught in the slot," was the
condition of the workplace that caused the fall.
The fact that claimant may have been uncertain as to which
stair caused her to fall or stated on other occasions she was
"uncertain as to how or why she tripped or stumbled" on the
stairs, does not render her testimony incredible, as a matter of
law. Claimant's testimony constitutes credible evidence to
support the commission's factual findings. Based upon those
findings, the commission could reasonably infer that the iron
grid work on the stairs caused or contributed to claimant's
fall, regardless of the fact that she could not identify the
specific step that caused her fall. "Where reasonable
inferences may be drawn from the evidence in support of the
commission's factual findings, they will not be disturbed by
- 3 -
this Court on appeal." Hawks v. Henrico County Sch. Bd., 7
Va. App. 398, 404, 374 S.E.2d 695, 698 (1988).
While the evidence supports the commission's finding that
the nature or configuration of the stairs caused claimant's
fall, the dispositive question is whether the nature or inherent
characteristics of the stairs is a condition peculiar to the
workplace. Was the nature or condition of the stairs a
"causative danger . . . peculiar to [her] work and not common to
the neighborhood[?]" R & T Investments v. Johns, Ltd., 228 Va.
249, 253, 321 S.E.2d 287, 298 (1984). Clearly, if steps are
defective or hazardous and cause an injury in the workplace, the
injury arises out of the employment. But, aside from being
defective or hazardous, if the nature, condition or
configuration of the steps are "peculiar" to the work
environment and "not common to the neighborhood," then a
causative relationship exists between the injury and a
"condition peculiar to the workplace."
Employer relies upon Southside Va. Training Ctr. v. Shell,
20 Va. App. 199, 455 S.E.2d 761 (1995), and County of Buchanan
Sch. Bd. v. Horton, 35 Va. App. 26, 542 S.E.2d 783 (2001), to
support its argument that the stairs were not a "condition
peculiar to the workplace." We find those cases are
distinguishable from this case. In Shell, unlike this case, the
evidence showed nothing unusual about the steps or that they
were defective or were peculiar to the workplace. The Court in
- 4 -
Shell focused upon whether the steps were higher than normal or
had varying surfaces and found no evidence to support either
finding. Shell, 20 Va. App. at 202, 455 S.E.2d at 762. In
Horton, the photographs of the edge view of the steps, submitted
by employer, showed the riser and step as being flush. Thus,
the Court in Horton found no evidence to support a finding that
the steps were defective or hazardous. Horton, 35 Va. App. at
29, 542 S.E.2d at 784. Thus, in both Shell and Horton, no
evidence proved that a defective or hazardous condition existed
to have caused the claimants' falls. Furthermore, the evidence
in those cases did not prove that either the nature, condition
or configuration of those steps were particular to or peculiar
to the workplace.
Here, on the other hand, the evidence proved that the iron
steps were a grid type construction, "little slot things . . .
little grate . . . little holes in those steps." The claimant
testified and the commission found that the toe of her shoe
caught on the "stair grid work" causing the fall. The
commission was justified in finding that the nature or
configuration of the step was peculiar to the workplace at the
Nottoway Correctional Center and, thus, the cause of the injury
arose out of her employment. The condition or configuration of
this type of stairway is common to a workplace environment but
an iron grate or grid stairway is not a "risk" "common to the
neighborhood" to which we are exposed.
- 5 -
For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
- 6 -