Goodyear Tire, etc. v. Samuel R. Taylor ( 1996 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Elder and Bray
Argued at Salem, Virginia
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY and
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 1119-96-3 JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY
DECEMBER 31, 1996
SAMUEL R. TAYLOR
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
Martha White Medley (Daniel, Vaughan, Medley &
Smitherman, P.C., on brief), for appellants.
No brief or argument for appellee.
Contending that Samuel R. Taylor (claimant) failed to prove
that a knee injury arose from his employment, Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Company and Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois
(employer) appeal a decision of the Workers' Compensation
Commission (commission) awarding claimant related medical
benefits. Finding no error, we affirm the decision of the
commission.
The parties are fully conversant with the record, and this
memorandum opinion recites only those facts necessary to a
disposition of the appeal. Guided by well established
principles, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable
to the party prevailing below, claimant in this instance. Crisp
v. Brown's Tysons Corner Dodge, Inc., 1 Va. App. 503, 504, 339
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
S.E.2d 916, 916 (1986). "If there is evidence, or reasonable
inferences can be drawn from the evidence, to support the
Commission's findings, they will not be disturbed on review, even
though there is evidence in the record to support a contrary
finding." Morris v. Badger Powhatan/Figgie Int'l, Inc., 3 Va.
App. 276, 279, 348 S.E.2d 876, 877 (1986); see Code § 65.2-706.
"In order to recover on a workers' compensation claim, a
claimant must prove: (1) an injury by accident, (2) arising out
of and (3) in the course of his employment." Kane Plumbing, Inc.
v. Small, 7 Va. App. 132, 135, 371 S.E.2d 828, 830 (1988); see
Code § 65.2-101. "The phrase arising 'in the course of' refers
to the time, place, and circumstances under which the accident
occurred," while "arising 'out of' refers to the origin or cause
of the injury." County of Chesterfield v. Johnson, 237 Va. 180,
183, 376 S.E.2d 73, 74 (1989).
"The mere happening of an accident at the workplace, not
caused by any work related risk or significant work related
exertion, is not compensable." Plumb Rite Plumbing Serv. v.
Barbour, 8 Va. App. 482, 484, 382 S.E.2d 305, 306 (1989). A
claimant must establish "that the conditions of the workplace
or . . . some significant work related exertion caused the
injury." Id. Thus, "the arising out of test excludes 'an injury
which comes from a hazard to which the employee would have been
equally exposed apart from the employment. The causative danger
must be peculiar to the work, incidental to the character of the
- 2 -
business, and not independent of the master-servant
relationship.'" Johnson, 237 Va. at 183-84, 376 S.E.2d at 75
(quoting United Parcel Service v. Fetterman, 230 Va. 257, 258-59,
336 S.E.2d 892, 893 (1985)).
"The actual determination of causation is a factual finding
that will not be disturbed on appeal," if supported by credible
evidence. Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Musick, 7 Va. App. 684, 688, 376
S.E.2d 814, 817 (1989); see Code § 65.2-706. However, "[w]hether
an injury arises out of and in the course of employment is a
mixed question of law and fact . . . , reviewable upon appeal."
Jones v. Colonial Williamsburg Found., 8 Va. App. 432, 434, 382
S.E.2d 300, 301 (1989).
Here, claimant's employment duties required that he change a
"slug," which is located in the "bottom sidewall plate[]" of a
tire mold and identifies the "cure" date of the tire. The plate
was accessed through a "hole in the bottom," "real low,"
approximately five to six inches from the floor. It was,
therefore, necessary for claimant to assume a "fairly awkward"
position, "squat[ting] down" in an environment that was "slick"
and "hot," unable to kneel because the floor was "hot." Claimant
testified that employer had repeatedly instructed that he
undertake the task by "bend[ing] [his] knees" rather than
"bending at the hip and hurting the back." In awarding benefits,
the commission concluded that
the claimant was required to engage in
prolonged squatting in a hot, slick area,
and to perform the task in a "fairly
- 3 -
awkward" position. After working in this
manner for approximately one and a half
hours, the claimant experienced a sudden,
painful popping in his knee as he squatted
down. . . . From this record we concur with
the Deputy Commissioner that this injury
arose out of the claimant's employment
conditions.
The commission's factual findings are supported by the
record, and establish an activity arising from a work-related
risk sufficiently distinctive to render the resulting injury
compensable. Compare Barbour, 8 Va. App. at 484, 382 S.E.2d at
306 (injury not compensable because it "resulted from merely
bending over," and not from any "significant work related
exertion [or condition]") with Kane Plumbing, 7 Va. App. at
137-38, 371 S.E.2d at 831-32 (injury compensable when employee
struck a rock, and turned unexpectedly while digging in awkward
position), and Richard E. Brown, Inc. v. Caporaletti, 12 Va. App.
242, 245, 402 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1991) (injury compensable when
suffered while lowering 100-pound furnace and performing related
tasks).
Accordingly, the commission correctly determined that
claimant's injury arose from his employment, and we affirm the
award.
Affirmed.
- 4 -