Interbake Foods, Inc. v. Ronald Feltner

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick
INTERBAKE FOODS, INC.
AND
LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY MEMORANDUM OPINION *
PER CURIAM
v. Record No. 1469-96-2 DECEMBER 10, 1996
RONALD FELTNER
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Lynne Jones Blain; Michelle P. Wiltshire;
Morris and Morris, on brief), for appellants.
(Malcolm Parks; Maloney, Barr & Huennekens,
on brief), for appellee.
Interbake Foods, Inc. and its insurer (hereinafter
collectively referred to as "employer") contend that the Workers'
Compensation Commission ("commission") erred in (1) reversing the
deputy commissioner's credibility determination and finding that
Ronald Feltner ("claimant") proved he sustained an injury by
accident arising out of and in the course of his employment on
January 8, 1995; and (2) finding that claimant's January 8, 1995
injury by accident caused his back 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.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
I. Injury by Accident
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). "In
order to carry his burden of proving an 'injury by accident,' a
claimant must prove that the cause of his injury was an
identifiable incident or sudden precipitating event and that it
resulted in an obvious sudden mechanical or structural change in
the body." Morris v. Morris, 238 Va. 578, 589, 385 S.E.2d 858,
865 (1989).
The deputy commissioner found that claimant did not prove he
sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course
of his employment on January 8, 1995. The deputy commissioner
found claimant's contemporaneous statements describing the
January 8, 1995 incident to his co-workers, health care
providers, and the insurance representative more persuasive than
claimant's hearing testimony. The deputy commissioner found that
these statements did not refer to a specific identifiable
incident.
The full commission reversed the deputy commissioner's
finding and held that claimant testified to an injury by accident
occurring at a specific time and place. In so ruling, the
commission found that the general description of the January 8,
1995 incident contained in the medical records and as reported by
claimant to his supervisors did not necessarily conflict with
2
claimant's more detailed testimony.
Employer contends that the full commission arbitrarily
disregarded the deputy commissioner's credibility determination
and failed to articulate a sufficient basis for its conclusion.
However,
[t]he principle set forth in [Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Co. v. ] Pierce [, 5 Va. App. 374,
383, 363 S.E.2d 433, 438 (1987),] does not
make the deputy commissioner's credibility
findings unreviewable by the commission.
Rather, it merely requires the commission to
articulate its reasons for reversing a
specific credibility determination of the
deputy commissioner when that determination
is based upon a recorded observation of the
demeanor or appearance of a witness. In
short, the rule in Pierce prevents the
commission from arbitrarily disregarding an
explicit credibility finding of the deputy
commissioner.
Bullion Hollow Enters., Inc. v. Lane, 14 Va. App. 725, 729, 418
S.E.2d 904, 907 (1992).
In this case, as in Bullion, upon a review of the deputy
commissioner's decision, we do not find a "specific recorded
observation" concerning any witness' demeanor or appearance
related to a credibility determination. The deputy commissioner
merely concluded from the evidence before him that claimant had
not met his burden of proof. "Absent a specific, recorded
observation regarding the behavior, demeanor or appearance of
[the witnesses], the commission had no duty to explain its
reasons for . . . [accepting claimant's version of events]." Id.
Therefore, employer's argument is without merit.
3
Moreover, when the commission's findings are supported by
credible evidence, as in this case, those findings are conclusive
and binding on appeal. Ross Laboratories v. Barbour, 13 Va. App.
373, 377-78, 412 S.E.2d 205, 208 (1991). Claimant testified
that, on January 8, 1995, he and a co-worker were installing
electrical wire under a conveyor belt. Claimant's job required
that he remove the wire from a two-foot spool, twist it, and
pass it to his co-worker, who then placed the wire in boxes under
the conveyor belt. As claimant performed this work, he sat under
the conveyor belt, with his left leg in front of him and his
right leg folded to the side. The outside of his left ankle and
the inside of his right ankle rested on the floor. After leaning
forward in this sitting position for fifteen to twenty minutes,
and as claimant twisted around and pulled on the spool of wire,
he felt a slight burning sensation in his left hip. At the time,
claimant thought his wallet, which was in his hip pocket, had
caused the burning sensation. After claimant finished feeding
the wire, he attempted to crawl out from under the conveyor belt.
When he stood up, he felt pain go down the back of his left leg.
The pain claimant felt upon standing originated from the same
location as the burning sensation.
Claimant reported the incident to his supervisor, Alvan
Suah, on the afternoon of January 8, 1995. The next day claimant
reported the incident to employer's maintenance superintendent,
George Hodges.
4
Although the medical records contain a more general
description of the January 8, 1995 incident than that found in
claimant's testimony, the records consistently report a history
of claimant sustaining pain radiating from his left hip down his
left leg while pulling wire at work, essentially corroborating
claimant's testimony.
Based upon claimant's testimony and the medical records, we
find that credible evidence supports the commission's decision
that claimant suffered an injury by accident arising out of and
in the course of his employment on January 8, 1995. "Although
contrary evidence may exist in the record, findings of fact made
by the commission will be upheld on appeal when supported by
credible evidence." Bullion, 14 Va. App. at 730, 418 S.E.2d at
907.
II. Causation
"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).
Dr. Kenneth I. Kiluk, claimant's treating neurosurgeon,
opined:
This gentleman underwent surgery for a
herniated disc at L5-S1 on the left which I
feel is a result of an injury at work on
January 8, 1995. I do feel that the twisting
and turning movements he described brought on
the severe pain in his left buttock, leg and
hip which ultimately resulted in the surgical
procedure done on 3/23/95.
5
The absence of any history of a back problem before January
8, 1995, claimant's testimony, and Dr. Kiluk's opinion, provide
credible evidence to support the commission's conclusion that the
January 8, 1995 injury by accident caused claimant's herniated
disc. "Where reasonable inferences may be drawn from the
evidence in support of the commission's factual findings, they
will not be disturbed by this Court on appeal." Hawks v. Henrico
Co. Sch. Bd., 7 Va. App. 398, 404, 374 S.E.2d 695, 698 (1988).
For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
6