Virginia Commonwealth Textiles v. M. Metz ( 1998 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH TEXTILES AND
AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 1671-98-2 PER CURIAM
DECEMBER 8, 1998
MICHAEL METZ
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(William W. Nexsen; J. Derek Turrietta;
Stackhouse, Smith & Nexsen, on brief), for
appellants.
(Christopher C. Booberg; Geoffrey McDonald
and Associates, on brief), for appellee.
Virginia Commonwealth Textiles and its insurer (hereinafter
referred to as "employer") contend that the Workers' Compensation
Commission ("commission") erred in finding that Michael Metz
proved that he sustained an injury by accident arising out of and
in the course of his employment, which caused an aggravation of
his pre-existing right shoulder condition. 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, 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1970).
So viewed, the evidence proved that on the evening of April
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010,
this opinion is not designated for publication.
24, 1997, Metz was working for employer as a criller. That job
required that Metz hang spools of yarn and run the yarn through
threading machines. Metz was required to work in a three and
one-half foot area with his arms raised overhead. Metz, who is
six feet four inches tall, estimated that the spools weighed two
to five pounds and that the hooks upon which he had to place the
spools were eight and one-half to nine feet off the ground.
Metz injured his right shoulder while performing his work
duties. He described the incident as follows:
I was hanging yarn up on the machines and
after I hung the yarn I come back around to
pull the yarn over the bars to run it through
the machine, and at the time I was pulling
the yarn my shoulder started to fall out of
place and I pulled down on the yarn the rest
of the way and it did fall out of place.
Metz further explained that as he was putting the yarn on the
spool, he felt "a lot of pain, you know, separation" in his arm.
He stated that his "arm started turning purple and everything,
it was just like a big pain at once." Metz suffered a dislocated
shoulder as a result of the incident.
Metz immediately reported the injury to his supervisor and
sought treatment that night at a hospital. The emergency room
physician recorded a history of "lifting a 5 pound object when
[Metz] felt a popping sensation in his right shoulder.
Apparently it dislocated. He was able to gently manipulate it
back into position."
Metz sought follow-up treatment from Dr. Loel Z. Payne, an
- 2 -
orthopedic surgeon, and reported to Dr. Payne the incident that
caused the injury. Dr. Payne noted that Metz had sustained two
previous injuries to his right shoulder, one in 1993 and one in
1995. However, Dr. Payne noted that the April 24, 1997 injury
was the first time Metz had dislocated his right shoulder since
1995. Dr. Payne diagnosed "recurrent right shoulder instability
with dislocation." He also opined that "the work injury on
4/24/97 was a recurrence of shoulder instability that was a
preexisting condition. The numbness in the arm both before and
after the accident are related to the instability. This was not
a new injury, but rather an exacerbation of a preexisting
condition." Dr. Payne performed surgery on Metz's right
shoulder.
Based upon this record, the commission found that Metz
proved that he sustained an injury by accident arising out of and
in the course of his employment. The commission also found that
Metz's pre-existing shoulder condition was aggravated by the work
accident, and, therefore, employer was responsible for medical
expenses and disability causally related to the exacerbation.
Injury by Accident
"In order to carry [the] burden of proving an 'injury by
accident,' a claimant must prove that the cause of [the] injury
was an identifiable incident or sudden precipitating event and
that it resulted in an obvious sudden mechanical or structural
change in the body." Morris v. Morris, 238 Va. 578, 589, 385
- 3 -
S.E.2d 858, 865 (1989).
"An accident may be said to arise out of and
in the course of the employment if the
exertion producing the accident is too great
for the man undertaking the work, even though
the degree of the exertion is usual and
ordinary and 'the workman had some
predisposing weakness.' . . . 'The question
is not whether it would affect the ordinary
man, but whether it affected the
[employee.]'"
Russell Loungewear v. Gray, 2 Va. App. 90, 94, 341 S.E.2d 824,
826 (1986) (citations omitted)).
Metz's testimony established that when he lifted the spool
of yarn over his head and pulled on the yarn, he dislocated his
right shoulder. Metz's testimony and the medical records provide
credible evidence to support the commission's finding that the
aggravation of his right shoulder condition was caused by an
identifiable incident that resulted in an obvious sudden
mechanical or structural change in his body. Thus, that finding
is conclusive on this appeal. See James v. Capitol Steel Constr.
Co., 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1989). Metz's
"evidence proved that the '"causative danger . . . had its origin
in a risk connected with the employment, and . . . flowed from
that source as a rational consequence."' That the activity was
usual, and did not require exertion, and that the injury was not
'foreseen or expected' are irrelevant." Grove v. Allied Signal,
Inc., 15 Va. App. 17, 22, 421 S.E.2d 32, 35 (1992) (citation
omitted).
- 4 -
II. Causation/Disability
"'[T]he employer takes the employee as he is and if the
employee is suffering some physical infirmity, which is
aggravated by an industrial accident, the employer is responsible
for the end result of such accident.'" McDaniel v. Colonial
Mechanical Corp., 3 Va. App. 408, 414, 350 S.E.2d 225, 228 (1986)
(citation omitted). "The actual determination of causation is a
factual finding that will not be disturbed on appeal if there is
credible evidence to support the finding." Ingersoll-Rand Co. v.
Musick, 7 Va. App. 684, 688, 376 S.E.2d 814, 817 (1989).
Dr. Payne opined that the April 24, 1997 work-related injury
caused an exacerbation of Metz's right shoulder condition. Dr.
Payne's medical records and opinions provide credible evidence
from which the commission could reasonably infer that Metz's
pre-existing right shoulder condition was aggravated by the April
24, 1997 work-related injury. Thus, that finding is conclusive
in this appeal. See James, 8 Va. App. at 515, 382 S.E.2d at 488.
For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
- 5 -