Testing Spec., Inc. v. Carlos Molyneaux ( 1996 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
TESTING SPECIALTIES, INC.
AND
GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA MEMORANDUM OPINION *
PER CURIAM
v. Record No. 0725-96-1 AUGUST 27, 1996
CARLOS MOLYNEAUX
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(William C. Walker; Bradford C. Jacob; Taylor &
Walker, on brief), for appellants.
(Lynne M. Ferris; Knight, Dudley, Clarke &
Dolph, on brief), for appellee.
The sole issue on this appeal is whether the Workers'
Compensation Commission erred in finding that Carlos Molyneaux
sustained an injury by accident arising out of his employment on
March 8, 1995. 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.
"Whether an injury arises out of the employment is a mixed
finding 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). Factual findings made by the
commission will be upheld on appeal if supported by credible
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
evidence. James v. Capital Steel Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 512,
515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1989). On appeal, we view the evidence
in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below. R.G.
Moore Bldg. Corp. v. Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d
788, 788 (1990).
The commission held that Molyneaux's injury arose out of the
conditions of his employment. In so ruling, the commission made
the following factual findings: "[Molyneaux] was in the process
of retrieving test equipment and computers from the company van.
As he held onto the equipment and locked the door, the van door
slid onto his finger."
Molyneaux's testimony constitutes credible evidence to
support these factual findings. In addition, this credible
evidence supports the commission's conclusion that Molyneaux's
injury arose out of the conditions of his employment.
Molyneaux's job duties, which required him to retrieve the
equipment from the van, exposed him to an actual risk of injury.
Thus, the injury that he received flowed from his employment as
a rational consequence. In other words, his injury was causally
connected to the manner in which he was required to perform his
work.
Because credible evidence supports the commission's finding
that the conditions of Molyneaux's employment exposed him to the
risk of his injury, we uphold the commission's finding that
2
Molyneaux's injury arose out of his employment. Therefore, we
affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
3