Giant Food, Inc v. Josephine C. Price ( 1995 )


Menu:
  •                      COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present:   Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
    GIANT FOOD, INC.
    AND
    LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY
    v.   Record No. 0788-95-4                      MEMORANDUM OPINION *
    PER CURIAM
    JOSEPHINE C. PRICE                             SEPTEMBER 26, 1995
    FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
    (Deborah A. Farson; Jordan, Coyne & Savits, on brief),
    for appellants.
    (Robert B. Adams; Ashcraft & Gerel, on brief), for
    appellee.
    Giant Food, Inc. and its insurer (hereinafter collectively
    referred to as "employer") contend that the Workers' Compensation
    Commission erred in finding that Josephine C. Price proved (1) an
    identifiable incident occurring at a reasonably definite time;
    and (2) a causal connection between the January 14, 1993 incident
    she described at the hearing and any structural or mechanical
    change in her right shoulder condition.    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.    R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v.
    Mullins, 
    10 Va. App. 211
    , 212, 
    390 S.E.2d 788
    , 788 (1990).
    *
    Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
    designated for publication.
    Factual findings made by the commission will be upheld on appeal
    if supported by credible evidence.    James v. Capitol Steel
    Constr. Co., 
    8 Va. App. 512
    , 515, 
    382 S.E.2d 487
    , 488 (1989).
    I.   Identifiable Incident
    Price testified that on January 14, 1993, she was lifting
    boxes of chicken packed in ice weighing forty to fifty pounds.
    As she was lifting the third box of chicken, she felt a severe
    pain in her arm and was unable to continue working.   She sought
    medical attention the next day from Dr. Alben Goldstein, a
    musculoskeletal disease specialist.   Dr. Goldstein recorded a
    history of "[o]n January 14, 1993, Mrs. Price developed severe
    pain in her right shoulder and right wrist."
    In holding that Price proved an identifiable incident, the
    commission found the following:
    In reviewing the recorded statement and
    contemporaneous medical reports, we do not
    find that the claimant's statements under
    oath regarding a sudden injury are impeached.
    It is clear that the claimant suffered from
    some underlying discomfort due to job-related
    repetitive strain. She discusses this
    discomfort in her statements to her doctors
    and the carrier. However, it is also clear
    that the claimant was able to perform her job
    despite her "unusual state of achy, annoying
    hurt," until January 14, 1993, when she
    experienced sudden, disabling pain. This
    sudden event was ultimately diagnosed in
    April, 1993, as an extensive, complete
    rotator cuff tear.
    Claimant's testimony, which is not inconsistent with the
    history given by her to Dr. Goldstein, provides sufficient
    credible evidence to support the commission's finding.    The
    2
    commission weighed the totality of the evidence, including the
    recorded statement, and resolved any inconsistencies in favor of
    Price.   We will not disturb this finding on appeal.    "In
    determining whether credible evidence exists, the appellate court
    does not retry the facts, reweigh the preponderance of the
    evidence, or make its own determination of the credibility of the
    witnesses."    Wagner Enters., Inc. v. Brooks, 
    12 Va. App. 890
    ,
    894, 
    407 S.E.2d 32
    , 35 (1991).
    II.   Causal Connection
    "The actual determination of causation is a factual finding
    that will not be disturbed on appeal if there is credible
    evidence to support the finding."      Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Musick,
    
    7 Va. App. 684
    , 688, 
    376 S.E.2d 814
    , 817 (1989).     "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 finding that Price proved a causal connection between the
    January 14, 1993 incident and her right shoulder injury, the
    commission stated:
    The claimant's treating specialist, Dr.
    . . . Goldstein, stated unequivocally that,
    while the claimant had underlying tendinitis
    and rotator cuff degeneration caused by
    overuse on the job, "there was a specific
    incident which occurred on January 14, 1993,"
    which culminated in a complete rotator cuff
    tear and immediate disability. Dr. [William
    A.] Hanff saw the claimant on one occasion,
    in August of 1993, and recorded the sudden
    onset of pain on January 14, 1993. He
    concluded however that the rotator cuff tear
    is chronic and not work related, and that the
    3
    claimant's job does not involve repetitive
    stress.
    *     *     *     *     *     *     *
    Dr. Goldstein, the treating physician,
    expressed his unequivocal opinion is that the
    rotator cuff tear occurred suddenly on
    January 14, 1993. His opinion is consistent
    with the claimant's testimony. We will not
    discount this opinion based upon a single
    examination by Dr. Hanff. Nor do we find
    that the claimant's credible testimony is
    impeached by minor inconsistencies in the
    medical record or recorded statement.
    In its role as fact finder, the commission was entitled to
    accept Dr. Goldstein's opinion and to reject the opinion of Dr.
    Hanff.   In cases of conflicting medical evidence, "'[t]he general
    rule is that when an attending physician is 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).    Dr.
    Goldstein's opinion provides credible evidence to support the
    commission's decision.    The existence of "contrary evidence in
    the record is of no consequence if there is credible evidence to
    support the commission's finding."     
    Brooks, 12 Va. App. at 894
    ,
    407 S.E.2d at 35.
    For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.
    Affirmed.
    4