Ruth Liddell v. INOVA Fairfax Hospital ( 1999 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
RUTH LIDDELL
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. Record No. 2746-98-4 PER CURIAM
MAY 18, 1999
INOVA FAIRFAX HOSPITAL AND
INOVA HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION, INC.
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Ruth Liddell, pro se, on brief).
(William L. Carey; McCandlish & Lillard, on
brief), for appellees.
Ruth Liddell contends that the Workers' Compensation
Commission ("commission") erred in finding that she failed to
prove that her left shoulder rotator cuff tear was causally
related to her compensable September 15, 1996 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. See Rule 5A:27.
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). Unless
we can say as a matter of law that claimant's evidence sustained
*Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010,
this opinion is not designated for publication.
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).
In finding that Liddell failed to prove that her left rotator
cuff tear was causally related to the September 15, 1996 injury by
accident, the commission found as follows:
We . . . are unwilling to infer causation
under the facts of this case. Liddell
admitted that she suffered from significant
pre-existing shoulder problems. On
September 30, 1996, Dr. [Robert] Stinger
indicated that [Liddell's] work injury had
resolved. [Liddell's] rotator cuff tears
were not diagnosed until March 1997. At
that time, Liddell was diagnosed with a
rotator cuff tear of the right shoulder as
well as the left shoulder, even though there
is no evidence that the right shoulder was
injured at the time of her industrial
accident. Under these facts, we can only
speculate whether the claimant's left
rotator cuff tear was caused by the work
accident . . . .
The commission's findings are amply supported by the
record. Based upon the lack of any persuasive medical evidence
to connect Liddell's left shoulder rotator cuff tear with her
compensable work injury, we cannot say as a matter of law that
her evidence sustained her burden of proving causation.
For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
- 2 -