Lear Corporation Winchester v. A. McFarland ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                      COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present:  Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judge Lemons and
    Senior Judge Duff
    Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
    LEAR CORPORATION WINCHESTER AND
    EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU
    MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
    v.       Record No. 2139-98-4    CHIEF JUDGE JOHANNA L. FITZPATRICK
    MAY 11, 1999
    ANNA M. McFARLAND
    FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
    Cathleen P. Welsh (Wharton, Aldhizer &
    Weaver, P.L.C., on brief), for appellants.
    Nikolas E. Parthemos (Parthemos & Bryant,
    P.C., on brief), for appellee.
    In this workers' compensation case, Lear Corporation
    Winchester and Employers Insurance of Wausau (collectively
    "employer") appeal a decision of the Workers' Compensation
    Commission awarding benefits to Anna M. McFarland ("claimant").
    Employer contends that the commission erred in finding that
    claimant's injury arose out of her employment.      Finding no
    error, we affirm the commission's decision.
    I.
    "Under familiar principles, we view the evidence in the
    light most favorable to the party prevailing below.       The
    *
    Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010,
    this opinion is not designated for publication.
    commission's findings of fact will be upheld on appeal if they
    are supported by credible evidence."     Uninsured Employer's Fund
    v. Clark, 
    26 Va. App. 277
    , 280, 
    494 S.E.2d 474
    , 475 (1998).
    So viewed, the evidence established that on January 27, 1997,
    claimant was working as a "relief operator" engaged in the
    assembly of cardboard boxes.    She was five-feet, four-inches
    tall, and weighed 200 pounds.   The boxes were described as two
    and one-half feet tall and five feet long, and each box weighed
    approximately one-fourth pound.   As a relief operator, claimant
    would retrieve two or three pre-cut boxes from a skid.    The
    boxes were pulled apart and the bottom flaps were folded toward
    the center and taped closed.    Claimant assembled boxes as "fast
    as [she] could" in approximately two-hour increments.
    Claimant testified that as she made the boxes, her body was
    in a "squatting" position, both knees bent, and her waist bent
    at about a forty-five degree angle.     She would hold her right
    knee on the side of the box to keep it from moving.    Claimant
    also demonstrated this technique for the deputy commissioner,
    who described claimant's physical position as "a slight squat,
    knees slightly flexed."
    At the time of her injury, claimant had been in the process
    of retrieving and making boxes for approximately 25-30 minutes.
    Claimant finished assembling one box and as she was
    straightening her body to an upright position, she felt "a sharp
    - 2 -
    stabbing pain" in her lower back on the right-hand side.          She
    stopped working, took some "Tylenol" and attempted to return to
    work.        However, she was unable to continue working and was taken
    to the Winchester Medical Center emergency room for medical
    treatment.
    At the hearing before the deputy commissioner, employer
    introduced into evidence a videotape of another employee
    assembling cardboard boxes.        After viewing the videotape,
    claimant testified that she did not put together boxes in the
    same manner as the other employee. 1
    The deputy commissioner found that at the time of her
    injury, claimant "performed her work in an awkward position,"
    which was "sustained for repeated periods of time."       The deputy
    commissioner concluded claimant's injury arose out of her
    employment and, therefore, awarded compensation benefits.         The
    full commission agreed:
    1
    Claimant testified as follows:
    Q. . . . All right. You saw her technique
    with how much bending she was doing and what
    she was doing with her legs. Is her
    technique identical to your technique or are
    there differences?
    A. There is [sic] differences.
    Q. Okay. Tell us what differences there
    are?
    A. Well, you know, she just bends over from
    the waist and do [sic] them. But I usually
    put my knee up against the box, you know,
    and bend and tape my box up.
    - 3 -
    The employer primarily argues that the
    claimant's injury did not arise out of her
    employment. We agree with the Deputy
    Commissioner that it did.
    The accident occurred after the
    claimant was partially squatting and bending
    over, at a forty-five degree angle, bracing
    a box with her knee. She felt a sharp
    stabbing pain in her lower back, when she
    was straightening up from this position.
    She had done this work for approximately
    one-half hour.
    The commission recognized that "simple acts of walking, bending
    or turning without any other contributing environmental factors
    are not risks of employment."    However, the commission concluded
    that "[claimant's] injury did not occur from just straightening.
    She had worked in an awkward position: bent at the waist,
    slightly crouching with her right knee against a box for about
    thirty minutes, and was injured when she rose from this
    position."
    II.
    Employer contends that the evidence does not support the
    commission's finding that claimant sustained a compensable
    injury arising out of her employment.    Employer argues that
    claimant's injury resulted from a "simple and common movement"
    that should not be considered a risk of her employment.     We
    disagree.
    In order to receive compensation benefits, claimant must
    prove that she suffered an injury by accident that arose out of
    - 4 -
    and in the course of the employment.    See County of Chesterfield
    v. Johnson, 
    237 Va. 180
    , 183, 
    376 S.E.2d 73
    , 74 (1989).   An
    injury "arises out of" the employment if a causal connection
    exists between the claimant's injury and "the conditions under
    which the employer requires the work to be performed," Grove v.
    Allied Signal, Inc., 
    15 Va. App. 17
    , 19, 
    421 S.E.2d 32
    , 34
    (1992), or "that some significant work related exertion caused
    the injury."   Plumb Rite Plumbing Service v. Barbour, 
    8 Va. App. 482
    , 484, 
    382 S.E.2d 305
    , 306 (1989).
    "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
    it excludes an injury which cannot fairly be
    traced to the employment as a contributing
    proximate cause and which comes from a
    hazard to which the workmen would have been
    equally exposed apart from the employment.
    The causative danger must be peculiar to the
    work and not common to the neighborhood. It
    must be incidental to the character of the
    business and not independent of the relation
    of master and servant. It need not have
    been foreseen or expected, but after the
    event it 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."
    R & T Investments, Ltd. v. Johns, 
    228 Va. 249
    , 252-53, 
    321 S.E.2d 287
    , 289 (1984) (citations omitted).
    - 5 -
    In Richard E. Brown, Inc. v. Caporaletti, 
    12 Va. App. 242
    ,
    
    402 S.E.2d 709
    (1991), we determined whether an employee's
    cutting and fitting motion performed in a bent over position
    while installing a 100-pound furnace exposed him to a risk of
    back injury unique to his employment.   Affirming the
    commission's award of benefits, we concluded the employee's need
    to work in the bent over position and to extract himself from
    that position was a "hazard to which [the employee] would not
    have been equally exposed apart from the conditions of
    employment."   
    Id. at 245, 402
    S.E.2d at 711 (citations omitted).
    See also Bassett-Walker, Inc. v. Wyatt, 
    26 Va. App. 87
    , 93-94,
    
    493 S.E.2d 384
    , 387-88 (1997) (concluding that claimant's
    knee-bending or "squatting" to reach a position close to the
    ground to load yarn on a knitting machine was a condition of
    work that exposed claimant to risk of injury); Grove, 15 Va.
    App. at 
    20-21, 421 S.E.2d at 34-35
    (holding that claimant's
    stooping and bending incidental to fixing pipes exposed him to a
    risk of back injury particular to his employment).
    In the instant case, credible evidence supports the
    commission's finding that claimant worked in an awkward
    position, "bent at the waist, slightly crouching with her right
    knee against a box."   Claimant testified that as she made the
    boxes, her body was in a "squatting" position, both knees bent,
    and her waist bent at about a forty-five degree angle.    She
    - 6 -
    would hold her right knee on the side of the box to keep it from
    moving.
    Additionally, claimant demonstrated this technique to the
    deputy commissioner and the full commission had the benefit of
    the deputy commissioner's contemporaneous description of her
    physical position (i.e., "A slight squat.    Knees slightly
    flexed.").   We will not substitute our judgment for that of the
    trier of fact, who had an opportunity to observe the witnesses
    and evaluate their credibility.   See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
    v. Pierce, 
    5 Va. App. 374
    , 382, 
    363 S.E.2d 433
    , 437 (1987),
    appeal after remand, 
    9 Va. App. 120
    , 
    384 S.E.2d 333
    (1989).
    Nevertheless, employer contends that there is nothing
    awkward or unusual about claimant's work activity because she
    "bent in the same or similar fashion" outside the work
    environment.   Contrary to employer's position, claimant
    testified on re-direct that in none of the activities she
    performed at home was she stooped or bent at the waist with her
    knee propped against something.   Moreover, "[t]he mere fact that
    an unusual movement required by one's employment is occasionally
    done outside the workplace does not necessarily make a resulting
    workplace injury non-compensable."     
    Bassett-Walker, 26 Va. App. at 94
    , 493 S.E.2d at 387-88.
    - 7 -
    Credible evidence supports the commission's findings and,
    accordingly, we affirm the award of compensation benefits. 2
    Affirmed.
    2
    Additionally, employer maintains that the commission erred
    in finding that claimant was "bent over in [an awkward] position
    for thirty minutes." In this regard, employer misconstrues the
    findings made by the commission. While the commission noted
    that claimant was working in an awkward position for an extended
    time, the record is clear that claimant worked approximately
    thirty minutes before she was injured. Claimant described the
    procedure in assembling the boxes, which included bending her
    waist and knees while she taped the boxes and straightening her
    body when she completed a box.
    - 8 -