Corte Co. v. Fred Eugene Holdren ( 1997 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick
CORTE COMPANY, INC.
AND
TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE COMPANY
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 0440-97-3 PER CURIAM
JUNE 24, 1997
FRED EUGENE HOLDREN
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Jennifer G. Marwitz; Law Offices of Richard A.
Hobson, on brief), for appellants.
(Donald R. Johnson; Donald T. Caruth;
Brewster, Morhouse & Cameron, on brief), for
appellee.
Corte Company, Inc. and its insurer (hereinafter
collectively referred to as "employer") appeal a decision of the
Workers' Compensation Commission (commission) awarding permanent
total disability benefits to Fred Eugene Holdren (claimant)
pursuant to Code § 65.2-503. Employer contends that the
commission erred in finding that claimant proved (1) he is
permanently and totally disabled from gainful employment due to
his loss of vision in both eyes; and (2) the loss of vision in
his right eye was caused by his compensable February 6, 1987
injury by accident. Finding no error, we affirm.
On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the prevailing party below. See R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). "[I]t
is fundamental that a finding of fact made by the Commission is
conclusive and binding upon this court on review. A question
raised by conflicting medical opinion is a question of fact."
Commonwealth v. Powell, 2 Va. App. 712, 714, 347 S.E.2d 532, 533
(1986). "Questions raised by conflicting medical opinions must
be decided by the commission." Penley v. Island Creek Coal Co.,
8 Va. App. 310, 318, 381 S.E.2d 231, 236 (1989).
In holding that claimant proved he is not able to use his
eyes in any substantial degree in gainful employment and in
awarding permanent total disability benefits to claimant, the
commission made the following findings:
[I]t is uncontradicted that claimant is
legally blind. Even the carrier's
rehabilitation expert suggests a sheltered
workshop for the blind as an appropriate
initial vocational placement. Dr. [Yasier]
Kanawati has clearly stated that the
claimant's vision problems stem from the
accident, and we so find, notwithstanding Dr.
[Stephen H.] Blaydes' questioning regarding
the precise mechanism of injury to the right
eye.
In its role as fact finder, the commission was entitled to
weigh the medical evidence and to accept the opinion of
claimant's treating physician, Dr. Kanawati. The commission was
also entitled to reject the opinion of independent medical
examiner, Dr. Blaydes, who examined claimant on one occasion at
employer's request. In cases of conflicting medical evidence,
"'[t]he general rule is that when an attending physician is
2
positive in his diagnosis . . . , great weight will be given by
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 medical records and opinions of Dr.
Kanawati constitute credible evidence to support the commission's
finding that claimant sustained permanent and total disability as
a result of the February 6, 1987 work accident, which rendered
him unable to use his eyes in any substantial degree in any
gainful employment.
For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
3