Cynthia S. Humphrey v. Quarles Q-Stop Div. ( 1995 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick
CYNTHIA S. HUMPHREY
v. Record No. 0650-95-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION *
PER CURIAM
QUARLES Q-STOP DIVISION OCTOBER 17, 1995
AND
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(A. Thomas Lane, Jr., on brief), for appellant.
(Beth M. Coyne; Fowler, Griffin, Coyne & Coyne, on
brief), for appellees.
Cynthia S. Humphrey (claimant) contends that the Workers'
Compensation Commission (commission) erred in finding that she
failed to prove that certain periods of total and partial
disability were causally related to her compensable August 11,
1993 injury by accident. 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.
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).
Unless we can say as a matter of law that claimant's evidence
sustained her burden of proving causation, the commission's
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
findings are binding and conclusive upon us. Tomko v. Michael's
Plastering Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1970).
The commission denied claimant's temporary total disability
application on the ground that she failed to show that her
hospitalizations and resultant work disability were caused by her
compensable back injury. The commission found as follows:
Absent a more definitive medical opinion
justified by the record that [claimant's]
injury contributed to the situational
psychological problems that induced the
medication overdoses, we cannot infer such a
causal relationship from the record before
us. We cannot find from the contemporaneous
treatment reports that fail to show a
significantly painful symptomatology that a
causal association should be inferred. We
also note that these July 1994 incidents were
prompted by other factors, most notably her
social interpersonal relationships, and
possibly her interpersonal associations at
work, and these appear to be the cause of
those dramatic depressions. We also note
that the treatment required of [claimant's]
preexisting depression did not appear to
change over the period after the accident and
before the July 1994 overdose, although her
symptomatology persisted during that time.
The failure of the treating physicians to
express any concern with the claimant's
psychological condition over this period
suggests that the July 1994 overdoses were
prompted by and resulted only from specific
independent situational factors that
confronted [claimant].
In denying claimant's application seeking temporary partial
disability beginning August 22, 1994, the commission found as
follows:
[T]he evidence does establish [claimant] is
unable to return to and perform all the tasks
of her pre-injury work. However, the
employer modified [claimant's] job tasks to
2
accommodate restrictions imposed by the
treating orthopedic physician, so [claimant]
was able to earn her pre-injury wage until
she requested the transfer to a subordinate
position. Dr. Chappell's June 10, 1994
letter report does not advise that [claimant]
is unable to perform her managerial tasks
because of her work injury, only that she
would feel more comfortable in a less
stressful job. This is certainly
understandable, but the employer cannot be
liable for [claimant's] unwillingness to
continue suitable work, only for an
incapacity to perform it. Her actual
capacity to perform the modified work offered
by the employer is established in the July
22, 1994 letter report of Dr. Chappell, who
notes only physical restrictions that the
employer was willing to and did accommodate.
To the extent that the job as a manager was
more stressful and was contraindicated at the
time because of her psychological condition,
we determined supra that such condition is
not related to the work accident. We cannot
hold the employer liable in this case for
disability unrelated to the work accident.
These factual findings are consistent with the record and
support the decision of the commission. Therefore, we cannot
find as a matter of law that claimant's evidence sustained her
burden of proving that her disability was caused by her
compensable August 11, 1993 injury by accident. Accordingly, we
affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
3