Linda M. Cowan v. Pine of York

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
LINDA M. COWAN
v. Record No. 0391-95-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION *
PER CURIAM
PINE OF YORK JULY 18, 1995
AND
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Curt G. Spear, Jr., on briefs), for appellant.
(William C. Walker; Donna White Kearney; Taylor &
Walker, on brief), for appellees.
Linda M. Cowan contends that the Workers' Compensation
Commission erred in finding that (1) she failed to prove that her
impingement syndrome and rotator cuff tear are "diseases" within
the meaning of "disease" under the Workers' Compensation Act; and
(2) her conditions did not arise out of and in the course of her
employment as a custodian for Pine of York ("employer"). 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.
In Merillat Industries, Inc. v. Parks, 246 Va. 429, 436
S.E.2d 600 (1993), the Supreme Court of Virginia held that the
Workers' Compensation Act "requires that the condition for which
compensation is sought as an occupational disease must first
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
qualify as a disease." Id. at 432, 436 S.E.2d at 601. "[T]he
record must support a finding . . . [of] disease." Id. at 433,
436 S.E.2d at 602. No medical evidence in this record would
support a finding that Cowan's impingement syndrome and rotator
cuff tear are diseases. Dr. Thomas M. Stiles, the treating
orthopedist, never referred to these conditions as diseases nor
did he relate them to any disease process. Rather, he
consistently attributed these conditions to repetitive lifting.
The record supports the commission's finding that no medical
evidence in the record satisfies the definition of disease set
forth in Piedmont Mfg. Co. v. East, 17 Va. App. 499, 503, 438
S.E.2d 769, 772 (1993).
Because our ruling on the "disease" issue disposes of this
appeal, we will not address Cowan's second question presented.
For the reasons stated, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
2