Alfred F Howington v. Image Works Landscapt Mgmt

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elder, Felton and Senior Judge Willis
ALFRED F. HOWINGTON
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. Record No. 0971-03-4 PER CURIAM
AUGUST 26, 2003
IMAGE WORKS LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT, LLC AND
AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Alfred F. Howington, pro se, on briefs).
(Brooke Anne C. Hunter; Kalbaugh, Pfund &
Messersmith, on brief), for appellees.
Alfred F. Howington (claimant) contends the Workers'
Compensation Commission erred in finding that he (1) failed to
prove he sustained an injury by accident on any particular date,
arising out of and in the course of his employment; and
(2) failed to give timely notice of his injury within the
statutory thirty-day period. Claimant also raises the question
of "[w]hether the lack of available records regarding prior
work-related injuries and the use by . . . employees of personal
insurance for those injuries unfairly prejudices the
claimant/appellant when the lack of notification defense is used
by the employer and the employer's personal memory serves as the
record thereby posing a conflict of interest." Upon reviewing
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
the record and the parties' briefs, 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).
"In order to carry [the] burden of proving an 'injury by
accident,' a claimant must prove that the cause of [the] 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). Unless we can say as a matter of law
that claimant's evidence sustained his burden of proof, the
commission's findings are binding and conclusive upon us. Tomko
v. Michael's Plastering Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 833,
835 (1970).
Claimant testified that on August 22, 2000, he injured his
left knee when he fell down a ramp while removing equipment from
the rear of employer's truck. Claimant felt immediate pain, but
did not think his injury was serious. He stated that it was the
"type injury where you bump your knee." He claimed there was
one eyewitness to the incident, but that the eyewitness no
longer worked for employer and he lived in New York.
From August 22, 2000 to September 4, 2000, claimant felt
"[j]ust stiffness" in his left knee. He stated that he fell
- 2 -
again on the ramp on September 4, 2000, landing on both knees,
resulting in a "dull pain" and "a throb." Claimant testified
that he fell numerous times on the ramp before it was replaced
on April 19, 2001. He estimated that he fell about ten times
between August 22, 2000 and April 19, 2001. He also testified
that while working on an unspecified date, he stepped into a
ditch, his knee gave way, and he fell. That incident caused his
knee to worsen. Claimant could not recall if he reported that
incident to employer.
Claimant testified that the condition of his left knee got
better after each fall, but then worsened again each time he
fell. He admitted he continued to work full-duty after August
22, 2000, but that he had stiffness in his knee. He also
admitted he did not seek medical treatment for his left knee
until September 2001. He claimed he did not seek medical
attention until September 2001 because he did not have medical
insurance until August 2001.
Claimant testified that he reported the August 22, 2000
accident immediately over his two-way radio to Michael McCarron,
his supervisor, and to another supervisor named "John."
Claimant stated that he told McCarron he fell down the ramp and
injured his knee, but that he could finish out the day.
Claimant testified that McCarron told him to use his personal
insurance to obtain treatment. Claimant also stated that he
mentioned his other accidents to his supervisors.
- 3 -
McCarron, employer's owner, testified that he spoke with
claimant on a daily basis in August 2000. However, he had no
knowledge that claimant was alleging an August 22, 2000 accident
until he was served with documentation from the commission after
claimant filed his Claim for Benefits on September 24, 2001.
McCarron denied having any conversations with claimant before
September 24, 2001, related to him sustaining a knee injury at
work in August 2000. McCarron denied requiring employees to use
their personal insurance for work accidents. McCarron confirmed
that claimant continued to work his regular schedule between
August 2000 and the date of the hearing. McCarron denied that
claimant ever complained to him of any knee problems since
August 2000. McCarron denied having any conversations with
claimant after August 22, 2000, regarding the condition of the
ramp or regarding other employees falling on the ramp.
According to McCarron, employer replaced the ramp at the end of
March 2001.
On September 17, 2001, Dr. Nassar Tahmassebi examined
claimant. Claimant reported left knee pain of a nine-month
duration. Dr. Tahmassebi reported as follows: "Had fall over
the L knee at work." In a March 19, 2002 Attending Physician's
Report, Dr. Tahmassebi indicated that claimant "slipped on ramp
attached to rear of work vehicle" on August 22, 2000, but that
his left knee pain had only been going on for nine months.
Dr. Tahmassebi diagnosed a contusion of the left knee.
- 4 -
Dr. Tahmassebi referred claimant to Dr. Edward Alexander, an
orthopedist.
Dr. Alexander, who first examined claimant on November 20,
2001, recorded a history of claimant twisting his knee in a
trailer while working on a truck unloading equipment
"approximately a year-and-a-quarter ago." Dr. Alexander
recommended that claimant undergo an MRI. The MRI showed no
evidence of meniscal or ligamentous tears, though it did show a
small cyst. Dr. Alexander did not believe the cyst was of any
significance, but ordered a bone scan. The bone scan showed
normal activity in the left distal femur, and Dr. Alexander
opined that the cyst was not related to claimant's injury. The
bone scan also showed degenerative changes over the medial
compartment of the left knee, which Dr. Alexander believed were
related to the August 22, 2000 incident. Dr. Alexander
recommended a course of mild anti-inflammatory medications.
In affirming the deputy commissioner's decision denying
claimant's claim for benefits, the commission found as follows:
[W]e find that the claimant failed to prove
that he suffered an injury to his left knee
as the result of a particular "accident."
The claimant, himself, acknowledges that he
fell and injured his knee on numerous
occasions from August 22, 2000, through
April 19, 2001, and it is unclear from the
medical records whether the claimant ever
mentioned these additional falls to his
physicians. Furthermore, the claimant did
not seek medical attention for his knee
until September 17, 2001, more than a year
after the date that he supposedly first fell
- 5 -
on the ramp. Under the circumstances, we
agree with the Deputy Commissioner's
conclusion that the claimant failed to
prove, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that he suffered an injury by accident, on
any particular date, arising out of and in
the course of his employment.
Claimant was required to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that he sustained "'an "identifiable incident that
occur[red] at some reasonably definite time," which . . .
cause[d] . . . "an obvious sudden mechanical or structural
change in the body."'" Seven-Up Bottling Co. v. Moseley, 230
Va. 245, 247, 335 S.E.2d 272, 274 (1985) (citations omitted).
In light of McCarron's testimony denying that claimant ever
reported an August 22, 2000 accident; claimant's admission that
he only felt as if he bumped his knee on August 22, 2000; his
acknowledgment that he fell on numerous unidentified occasions
between August 22, 2000 and April 19, 2001; the approximately
one-year delay in his seeking medical treatment; his failure to
mention his alleged other falls to his physicians; and
Dr. Tahmassebi's initial notation of a fall nine months before
September 17, 2001, the commission, as fact finder, could
reasonably conclude that claimant failed to prove he sustained
an identifiable incident occurring at some reasonably definite
time, which resulted in an obvious sudden mechanical or
structural change in his body.
Based upon this record, we cannot find as a matter of law
that claimant's evidence was sufficient to sustain his burden of
- 6 -
proof. Accordingly, the commission's findings are binding and
conclusive upon us.
The sole issue addressed by the commission in its decision
was whether claimant proved he sustained an injury by accident
arising out of and in the course of his employment. Our
decision on that issue is dispositive of this appeal.
Therefore, we decline to address the remaining questions raised
by claimant.
For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
- 7 -