Mountain Lake v. Raymond O. Meredith ( 1996 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick
MOUNTAIN LAKE
AND
TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE COMPANY MEMORANDUM OPINION *
PER CURIAM
v. Record No. 0333-96-3 AUGUST 20, 1996
RAYMOND O. MEREDITH
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Richard A. Hobson, on brief), for
appellants.
(James A. Hartley; Hartley, Chidester and
Steele, P.C., on brief), for appellee.
Mountain Lake and its insurer (jointly referred to herein as
employer) contend that the Workers' Compensation Commission
(commission) erred in finding that injuries sustained by Raymond
O. Meredith (claimant) as a result of his January 22, 1995 fall
down a stairway arose out of his employment. 1 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 January 22, 1995, while in the course of his employment,
claimant fell as he attempted to descend a stairway from the
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
1
Employer also contends that the commission committed
reversible error by allowing claimant to speculate as to how the
injury occurred. We disagree. The commission's decision was
based upon claimant's uncontradicted testimony of actual events,
not upon any alleged speculation.
second floor of Mountain Lake Hotel. The stairway consisted of a
flight of six or seven steps, a landing, and another flight of
steps leading to the first floor lobby. The handrail for the
steps did not extend all the way to the second floor landing. It
began approximately twelve inches below the second floor landing.
The only sources of light for the stairway came from the second
floor hall and two lights in the lobby. Claimant could not turn
on any lights in the stairway because the switch was located in
the downstairs lobby office. Although the stairway was not
completely dark, claimant stated that there was "some light but
not a great deal." Claimant, who has had a prosthesis on his
right leg since 1956, placed his right foot on the stair, started
to lean forward to grab the handrail, and fell. He testified
that he could not see where he was putting his leg due to the
lack of light.
"To prove the 'arising out of' element, [in a case involving
injuries sustained from falling down stairs at work,] [claimant]
must show that a condition of the workplace either caused or
contributed to [his] fall." Southside Virginia Training Ctr. v.
Shell, 20 Va. App. 199, 202, 455 S.E.2d 761, 763 (1995) (citing
County of Chesterfield v. Johnson, 237 Va. 180, 184, 376 S.E.2d
73, 76 (1989)). "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).
2
In ruling that claimant's injuries arose out of his
employment, the commission found that "the claimant fell while
descending a darkened stairwell equipped with an inadequate
railing after he stepped forward with his artificial leg. We
believe that the evidence establishes that the conditions of the
claimant's employment caused his fall."
"Where reasonable inferences may be drawn from the evidence
in support of the commission's factual findings, they will not be
disturbed by this Court on appeal." Hawks v. Henrico County Sch.
Bd., 7 Va. App. 398, 404, 374 S.E.2d 695, 698 (1988). Based upon
claimant's testimony, the commission could reasonably infer that
the lack of adequate lighting in the stairwell and the
positioning of the handrail constituted risks peculiar to
claimant's employment which contributed to cause his fall.
Accordingly, the commission did not err in finding that the
conditions of claimant's employment caused his fall and that,
therefore, his injuries arose out of his employment.
For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
3