Bonnie S. Pate v. Dollar Tree Stores

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elder, Bumgardner and Lemons
BONNIE S. PATE
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. Record No. 0065-99-1 PER CURIAM
JUNE 1, 1999
DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC. AND
GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(John H. Klein; Montagna, Klein & Camden,
L.L.P., on brief), for appellant.
(Bradford C. Jacob; Taylor & Walker, P.C., on
brief), for appellees.
Bonnie Pate (claimant) contends that the Workers'
Compensation Commission (commission) erred in finding that she
failed to prove that she sustained an injury by accident arising
out of her employment on October 14, 1997. 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. See Rule 5A:27.
On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the prevailing party below. See R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v.
Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). To
recover benefits, claimant must establish that she suffered an
*Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010,
this opinion is not designated for publication.
"injury by accident arising out of and in the course of [her]
employment," Code § 65.2-101, and "that the conditions of the
workplace or some significant work related exertion caused the
injury." Plumb Rite Plumbing Serv. v. Barbour, 8 Va. App. 482,
484, 382 S.E.2d 305, 306 (1989). "The phrase 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). "Whether an injury arises out of the employment is a
mixed question of law and fact and is reviewable by the appellate
court." Plumb Rite, 8 Va. App. at 483, 382 S.E.2d at 305.
However, unless we conclude that claimant proved, as a matter of
law, that her employment caused her injury, the commission's
finding is binding and conclusive upon us. See Tomko v. Michael’s
Plastering Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1970).
In denying claimant's application, the commission found as
follows:
[T]he claimant was sitting in a low chair,
the desk was at a level right under her
breast line, when she felt pain in her low
back after reaching forward and picking up a
stack of paper that weighed less than two
pounds. We cannot find, based on the
evidence, that the height of the chair
required the claimant to reach or stretch
sufficiently to have placed her in an
awkward position or require unusual exertion
in order to collate the documents.
Therefore, there was not a causative nexus
between the chair height and the injury.
. . . [T]he claimant was performing the
simple task of reaching to collate documents
while sitting in a chair that was lower in
-2-
relation to the desk than one would normally
expect. This is not sufficient to provide
the sufficient relationship between the work
and the injury for the injury to arise out
of the employment.
No evidence established that claimant engaged in any
significant exertion, that her action of sitting in the chair
and reaching for the papers involved any awkward position, or
that any condition or hazard peculiar to her workplace caused
her injury, aside from the usual act of reaching to pick up the
papers. Therefore, we hold that claimant failed to prove as a
matter of law that her injury arose out of her employment.
For the reasons stated, we affirm the commission's
decision.
Affirmed.
-3-