William L. Adair v. Bunyon First Products ( 1997 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
WILLIAM L. ADAIR
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 1568-97-2 PER CURIAM
DECEMBER 9, 1997
BUNYON FOREST PRODUCTS AND
FIDELITY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(William L. Adair, pro se, on briefs).
(Jonathan S. Rochkind; Law Offices of
Stuart L. Plotnick, on brief), for appellees.
William L. Adair contends that the Workers' Compensation
Commission erred in finding that he failed to prove that his
current knee problems were causally related to his compensable
November 22, 1994 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. 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 Adair's evidence
sustained his burden of proving a causal connection between his
current knee problems and his November 22, 1994 compensable
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
injury by accident, 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 denying Adair's application, the commission found as
follows:
[Adair's] treating physician for the
1994 accident was Dr. William O'Brien.
Dr. O'Brien examined [Adair] on the day after
the accident and in February 1996 when [he]
began to have complaints with his right knee.
Dr. O'Brien reported that these problems
were not related to the 1994 accident.
Although Dr. [Kurt R.] Larson has a contrary
view "by history," Dr. O'Brien was the only
physician who examined [Adair] after both
accidents and was in the best position to
comment on causation. The Commission gives
great weight to his Opinion.
When we add the treating physician's
opinion to the facts that [Adair's] 1994
accident was minor, that it did not cause him
to miss much time from work, that he did not
need any medical care for over a year, that
the right knee problems did not begin until
after surgery for the second industrial
accident and [Adair] testified that he
favored his right knee after that surgery, we
find [Adair] has not proven his current
disability is related to the 1994 industrial
accident.
In its role as fact finder, the commission was entitled to
weigh the medical evidence, to accept Dr. O'Brien's opinion, and
to reject any contrary medical opinion. "Questions raised by
conflicting medical opinion must be decided by the commission."
Penley v. Island Creek Coal Co., 8 Va. App. 310, 318, 381 S.E.2d
231, 236 (1989). Moreover, "'when an attending physician is
positive in his diagnosis . . . , great weight will be given by
2
the courts to his opinion.'" Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc. v.
Reeves, 1 Va. App. 435, 439, 339 S.E.2d 570, 572 (1986)
(citations omitted).
The commission's findings based upon Dr. O'Brien's opinion
are binding and conclusive upon us. Thus, we cannot say as a
matter of law that Adair's evidence sustained his burden of
proving a causal connection between his current knee problems and
his November 22, 1994 compensable injury by accident. See Tomko,
210 Va. at 699, 173 S.E.2d at 835.
For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
3