Sentara Home Care Services v. Daisy Garland ( 1996 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Coleman and Bray
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia
SENTARA HOME CARE SERVICES/
SENTARA HEALTH SYSTEM AND
CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
CHIEF JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON
v. Record No. 0246-96-1 JULY 2, 1996
DAISY GARLAND
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
Colleen T. Dickerson (George J. Dancigers;
Heilig, McKenry, Fraim & Lollar, P.C., on
brief), for appellants.
Jeffrey R. Russell (Jeffrey R. Russell, P.C.,
on brief), for appellee.
Sentara Home Care Services appeals from the decision of the
Workers' Compensation Commission awarding benefits to Daisy
Garland. Sentara argues that Ms. Garland did not show that her
injury arose out of her employment. We affirm the commission's
decision.
At the time of her injury, Ms. Garland was a 55-year-old
certified nursing aide employed by Sentara Home Care Services.
She was assigned to care for Steven Glascow, a terminally ill
AIDS patient who resided in a trailer park in Norfolk. Ms.
Garland had been instructed by her supervisor to assist Mr.
Glascow with any activities that he reasonably wished to perform.
As part of their regular routine, Ms. Garland and Mr. Glascow
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
walked to the Junior Market, across Newtown Road from the trailer
park.
On October 16, 1992, Ms. Garland and Mr. Glascow walked to
the Junior Market for ice, a bottled drink, and chips. Mr.
Glascow was supposed to use a walker, but did not wish to do so
on this occasion. Because he was so weak, Ms. Garland supported
him by walking with her left arm linked through his, and held the
grocery bags in her right arm. They reached the median strip,
and traffic was heavy so they had to wait. As they began to step
off the median, Mr. Glascow leaned as if he were going to fall.
Ms. Garland put down her grocery bags and grabbed Mr. Glascow so
he would not fall into the street. Then, as Ms. Garland
testified, "When I caught Steven, me stepping down, I twisted my
foot. My foot went the opposite way and my knee went one way."
Ms. Garland testified that had she not caught Mr. Glascow, he
would have fallen.
After the accident, Ms. Garland continued to Mr. Glascow's
trailer and immediately began experiencing "charley horses on the
back of my leg." After three days of increasing symptoms, she
was taken to the emergency room by a friend, where she was
diagnosed with a partial impaction fraction of her femur and
cartilage tears in her knee.
The commission's decision that an accident arose out of the
employment involves a mixed question of fact and law and is thus
reviewable on appeal. Southside Virginia Training Center v.
- 2 -
Shell, 20 Va. App. 199, 202, 455 S.E.2d 761, 763 (1995). In
reviewing the commission's factual findings, we view the record
in the light most favorable to the claimant, as the prevailing
party, and do not disturb the commission's findings so long as
there is credible evidence to support them. Manassas Ice & Fuel
Co. v. Farrar, 13 Va. App. 227, 229, 409 S.E.2d 824, 826 (1991).
To prove that the injury arose out of the employment, the
claimant must show that a condition of the employment either
caused or contributed to the fall. County of Chesterfield v.
Johnson, 237 Va. 180, 184, 376 S.E.2d 73, 75 (1989). The
claimant must demonstrate "a causal connection between the
conditions under which the work is required to be performed and
the resulting injury." Marketing Profiles, Inc. v. Hill, 17 Va.
App. 431, 434, 437 S.E.2d 727, 729 (1993) (en banc) (quoting
Bradshaw v. Aronovitch, 170 Va. 329, 335, 196 S.E. 684, 686
(1938)).
The commission found that Ms. Garland's evidence established
Glascow's unsteadiness as the cause of her fall. His
unsteadiness required Ms. Garland to catch him as he stepped off
the median, whereupon her "stepping down" caused her to "twist
[her] foot" and her "foot went the opposite way and my knee went
one way." There is no dispute that accompanying her patient to
the store and assisting him in maintaining his balance--
activities that posed considerable physical risk--were within Ms.
Garland's duties as a home care provider. The commission's
- 3 -
factual findings were supported by credible evidence, and the
commission did not err in concluding that a condition of Ms.
Garland's employment contributed to her injury.
Sentara argues that this is an "unexplained fall" case, and
asks us to rely on Memorial Hospital of Martinsville v. Hairston,
2 Va. App. 677, 347 S.E.2d 527 (1986), and other cases involving
such falls. Sentara bases this argument on responses Ms. Garland
gave to questions put to her by Sentara's counsel and the deputy
commissioner. Taken in isolation, these statements suggest that
Ms. Garland could not explain why she slipped and injured
herself. However, taken as a whole Ms. Garland's testimony shows
that she suffered her injury as the result of a difficult
physical maneuver that she performed in order to protect her
patient from harm. Thus, Ms. Garland explained her fall, and her
explanation supports the commission's determination that her
injury arose out of her employment.
In Memorial Hospital of Martinsville v. Hairston, a hospital
employee who slipped on a flat, unobstructed floor in her
employer's hospital was unable to explain the cause of her fall
or to show that the cause was a risk of her employment.
Hairston, 2 Va. App. at 682, 347 S.E.2d at 529. In Southside
Virginia Training Center v. Shell, also cited by Sentara, the
claimant was inattentive and slipped on stairs that posed no
special risk of injury. Shell, 20 Va. App. at 203-04, 455 S.E.2d
at 763-64. In both cases, we held that the claimant had not met
- 4 -
her burden of showing that the injury arose out of the
employment. In contrast, Ms. Garland established that her injury
was caused by the special conditions of her employment.
For these reasons, we affirm the award.
Affirmed.
- 5 -