Alexandria Hospital v. Meena Munjal

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Willis, Bray and Annunziata
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
ALEXANDRIA HOSPITAL AND
INOVA HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION, INC.
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. Record No. 0059-02-4 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR.
AUGUST 6, 2002
MEENA MUNJAL
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
Eric J. Berghold (McCandlish & Lillard, P.C.,
on brief), for appellants.
No brief or argument for appellee.
Alexandria Hospital and INOVA Health System
Foundation, Inc. ("employer") appeal a decision of the Workers'
Compensation Commission awarding Meena Munjal benefits for
injuries sustained as a result of a fall while at work. The
employer contends (1) that Munjal's injury by accident did not
arise out of her employment; and (2) that her back was not
injured in the accident. We affirm the commission's decision.
On appeal, "[d]ecisions of the commission as to questions
of fact, if supported by credible evidence, are conclusive and
binding on this Court." Manassas Ice & Fuel Co. v. Federated
Mutual Ins. Co., 13 Va. App. 227, 229, 409 S.E.2d 824, 826
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
(1991). "The fact that contrary evidence may be found in the
record is of no consequence if credible evidence supports the
commission's finding." Id. We view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the prevailing party below. Creedle Sales Co.
v. Edmonds, 24 Va. App. 24, 26, 480 S.E.2d 123, 124 (1997).
However, "[t]his Court is not bound by the legal determinations
made by the commission." Robinson v. Salvation Army, 20
Va. App. 570, 572, 459 S.E.2d 103, 104 (1995).
I. BACKGROUND
On May 17, 2000, Munjal, a registered nurse, was injured at
her place of employment, INOVA Alexandria Hospital. Munjal and
several other nurses were sitting around a table in a conference
room listening to recorded medical reports. Their chairs were
close together. Some of the chairs, including Munjal's, were on
rollers. They were unbalanced, wobbled, and moved from side to
side.
While listening to the reports, Munjal stood up from her
chair, leaned forward, and reached for the cardex. Having
obtained the cardex, she attempted to sit back in her chair.
However, the chair had moved back and Munjal fell to the floor.
She hit her left forearm and the left side of her neck and head
on the armrest of the chair. The right side of her hip struck
the floor.
Following the incident, Munjal filled out an Employee
Occurrence Report, noting injuries to her left head, neck, and
- 2 -
right hip. She reported no back injury. Thereafter, she sought
treatment in the emergency room. The emergency room medical
records reported no back injury. They stated there was "no
c[omplaint]/o[f] back pain." Munjal also filled out a Virginia
Workers' Compensation Commission Form 5 ("VWC Form 5"). On the
form she noted her injuries, making no mention of back pain or a
back injury.
On June 1, 2000, Munjal was seen by Dr. Michael Leonidov.
His notes state that she "[f]ell at work on 5/17. Awoke the
next day with some back pain. Was seen in the ER the same day
of the incident and just given Motrin; did not have the back
pain at that time." Dr. Leonidov recommended that x-rays be
taken, but Munjal refused because she did not want to take off
from work. Her back pain cleared up and completely resolved by
June, 2000.
The deputy commissioner held:
[T]he evidence preponderates in proving that
the accident was caused by a risk of the
employment. It is . . . the claimant's
contention that she fell because after
leaning forward to reach for a Kardex the
chair on which she had been seated moved
since it was unstable. This would certainly
constitute a risk of the employment.
Moreover, given the claimant's testimony
that the chairs were very close together
with no space between them, it hardly seems
likely that she simply missed the chair in
sitting back.
The full commission affirmed the deputy's finding of causation,
holding:
- 3 -
[T]he claimant . . . sustained injuries when
she missed a chair that was unstable and had
moved, while attempting to sit at a
conference table after leaning over to reach
for a file. The claimant's action in
leaning forward to reach over the conference
table, and then moving backward in
anticipation that her seat would be in the
same position as she left it, involved an
awkward position caused by the environmental
factors of the seating area. Thus, the
awkward position caused by the conditions of
the claimant's work provides the requisite
critical link between the employment and the
injury, and we find that her injury arose
out of her employment.
We read the "awkward position" found by the commission to
describe not a physical contortion of Munjal's body, but rather
an awkward and potentially dangerous situation created by the
close seating of the nurses in unstable moveable chairs, under
circumstances requiring movement in and out of those chairs.
The record supports the commission's determination.
II. ANALYSIS
The employer first contends that the commission erred in
finding that Munjal's accident arose out of her employment. We
disagree.
An injury arises out of the employment when
there is apparent to the rational mind upon
consideration of all the circumstances, a
causal connection between the conditions
under which the work is required to be
performed and the resulting injury. . . .
But it excludes an injury which cannot
fairly be traced to the employment as a
contributing proximate cause and which comes
from a hazard to which the workman would
have been equally exposed apart from the
employment. The causative danger must be
- 4 -
peculiar to the work and not common to the
neighborhood. It must be incidental to the
character of the business and not
independent of the relation of master and
servant.
Baggett Transp. Co. v. Dillon, 219 Va. 633, 637-38, 248 S.E.2d
819, 822 (1978).
Munjal testified that the chairs around the table,
including the one in which she sat, were close together and were
on rollers, some of which were unbalanced, wobbled, and moved
from side to side. In performing her duties, she stood up from
her chair, leaned forward, and reached for the cardex. When she
attempted to sit back in her chair, it had moved. Consequently,
she fell to the floor. The requirement of close seating in
unstable, moveable chairs created an awkward and unstable
condition, causing Munjal's injury. Thus, her injury arose out
of her employment.
The employer next contends that no contemporaneous evidence
supports the finding that Munjal injured her back in the
accident. "While it is true that a claimant must show an
identifiable incident that occurs at some reasonably definite
time, it is not necessary in establishing causation that the
pain or other physical manifestation of injury be
contemporaneous with the incident in employment to prove that
the injury arose out of the employment." Morris v. Morris, 4
Va. App. 193, 200, 355 S.E.2d 892, 896 (1987), rev'd on other
grounds, 238 Va. 578, 385 S.E.2d 858 (1989). The record in this
- 5 -
case supports the commission's finding that Munjal's injury was
caused by the fall while attempting to return to her chair.
Thus, the cause of her injury was an "identifiable incident or
sudden precipitating event" that resulted in an obvious "sudden
mechanical or structural change in the body." See id.
Munjal admitted that she did not experience back pain
immediately following the accident. The emergency room records,
Employee Occurrence Report, VWC Form 5, and Dr. Leonidov's
records all verify that fact. However, at approximately
midnight or the morning following the accident, she began to
experience back pain. This was noted in Dr. Leonidov's records
from her June 1, 2000, examination: "Fell at work on 5/17.
Awoke the next day with some back pain. Was seen in the ER the
same day of the incident and just given Motrin; did not have the
back pain at that time." The Act does not require that a
claimant feel or make a contemporaneous complaint of pain or
seek immediate medical treatment. The requirement is that the
injury result from the accident. The evidence supports the
commission's finding that it did in this case.
We affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
- 6 -