Ioannis Anastasis v. C&T Painting Co. ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                     COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present: Judges Baker, Willis and Overton
    Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
    IOANNIS ANASTASIS
    v.          Record No. 0761-95-4      MEMORANDUM OPINION *
    BY JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER
    C & T PAINTING COMPANY                 FEBRUARY 6, 1996
    and
    AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY
    FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
    Craig A. Brown (Lawrence J. Pascal; Ashcraft & Gerel,
    on brief), for appellant.
    Roger S. Mackey (Law Offices of Conrad A. Fontaine,
    on brief), for appellees.
    In this appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation
    Commission (commission), Ioannis Anastasis (claimant) presents
    the sole issue of whether the commission erroneously found that
    he failed to sustain his burden to show that he incurred an
    injury that arose from an identifiable incident or sudden
    precipitating event while employed by C & T Painting Company
    (employer).   Finding no error, we affirm the commission's
    decision.
    The facts referenced herein are stated in the light most
    favorable to the employer, the prevailing party below.        Crisp v.
    Brown's Tysons Corner Dodge, Inc., 1 Va. App 503, 504, 
    339 S.E.2d 916
    , 916 (1986).    As the parties are familiar with the facts
    *
    Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
    designated for publication.
    disclosed by the record, we cite only those necessary to an
    understanding of this opinion.
    Claimant contends that on April 27, 1993, he sustained an
    injury when he fell on his buttocks while working for employer.
    At the time, he says that he was sandblasting a bridge which was
    to be painted.    The work area where claimant testified that he
    fell was on a scaffold enclosed by a tarp concealing him from the
    view of others.
    Christos Triantafillopolos (owner) testified that claimant
    had been working as a sandblaster on a scaffold on the day
    claimant asserts he fell.   However, owner said that when claimant
    came down from the scaffold, he stated his reason for his descent
    was that he was tired and made no mention of a fall.   The owner
    further testified that when claimant failed to work on the
    following day, he asserted that it was because his foot was tired
    from moving the tarp with his foot.
    One of claimant's co-workers testified that on April 27,
    1993, when claimant came down for lunch nothing appeared to be
    wrong with claimant but that later that day claimant said he had
    "hurt his leg or neck."   The co-worker further testified that
    claimant said he hurt his leg while sandblasting and, because of
    his advanced age, he could not meet the challenge of another
    sandblaster who raced him to see who sandblasted faster.
    On April 30, 1993, three days after the event claimant
    contends entitles him to compensation, he was examined by Dr.
    - 2 -
    Panayiotis Baltatzis, an internist.       Dr. Baltatzis's report
    concerning claimant's first visit does not mention that claimant
    asked to be treated for a back injury.      Rather, the doctor's
    report indicates that claimant told him that he had been pushing
    against the tarp for three to four hours a day.
    Several months later, when seen by other doctors, claimant
    apparently referred to a "slip and fall" while at work.
    In its opinion, the commission reviewed the medical evidence
    and facts related by the owner and the conflicting evidence of
    claimant and his witness and found that claimant had not shown by
    a preponderance of the evidence that he had suffered an injury by
    accident arising out of and in the course of his employment on
    April 27, 1993.
    The fact that contrary evidence may be in the record is of
    no consequence if there is credible evidence to support the
    commission's finding.     Russell Loungewear v. Gray, 
    2 Va. App. 90
    ,
    95, 
    341 S.E.2d 824
    , 826 (1986).    It is fundamental that a finding
    of fact made by the commission is conclusive and binding upon
    this Court.   Commonwealth v. Powell, 
    2 Va. App. 712
    , 714, 
    347 S.E.2d 532
    , 533 (1986).    A question raised by conflicting medical
    opinions is a question of fact.     Id.    We have reviewed the record
    and find there is credible evidence sufficient to support the
    commission's decision.    Accordingly, we are bound by the finding
    of the commission and affirm its decision.
    Affirmed.
    - 3 -