Newport News Shipbuilding v. Queen Wiggins ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                    COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Elder and Bray
    Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia
    NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING
    AND DRY DOCK COMPANY
    MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
    v.   Record No. 1716-99-1      CHIEF JUDGE JOHANNA L. FITZPATRICK
    MARCH 21, 2000
    QUEEN E. WIGGINS
    FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
    Jonathan H. Walker (Mason, Cowardin & Mason,
    on brief), for appellant.
    (Gregory E. Camden; Montagna, Klein & Camden,
    on brief), for appellee.
    Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company ("employer")
    contends the Workers' Compensation Commission ("commission")
    erred in awarding disability compensation benefits to Queen E.
    Wiggins ("claimant").   On appeal, employer argues that the
    commission erred in finding:   (1) that claimant was totally
    disabled as a result of an "injury by accident" to her left
    knee; and (2) that employer was required to offer claimant light
    duty employment within her knee restrictions.     Because credible
    evidence supports the commission's decision, we affirm.
    *
    Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
    § 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
    I.
    "On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most
    favorable to the claimant, who prevailed before the commission."
    Allen & Rocks, Inc. v. Briggs, 
    28 Va. App. 662
    , 672, 
    508 S.E.2d 335
    , 340 (1998) (citations omitted).     "'A question raised by
    conflicting medical opinion is a question of fact.'"      WLR Foods,
    Inc. v. Cardosa, 
    26 Va. App. 220
    , 230, 
    494 S.E.2d 147
    , 152
    (1997) (quoting Dept. of Corrections v. Powell, 
    2 Va. App. 712
    ,
    714, 
    347 S.E.2d 532
    , 533 (1986)).      "'Decisions of the commission
    as to questions of fact, if supported by credible evidence, are
    conclusive and binding on this Court.'"      
    Id.
     (quoting Manassas
    Ice & Fuel Co. v. Farrar, 
    13 Va. App. 227
    , 229, 
    409 S.E.2d 824
    ,
    826 (1991)).   "'The fact that there is contrary evidence in the
    record is of no consequence.'"     
    Id.
     (quoting Wagner Enters.,
    Inc. v. Brooks, 
    12 Va. App. 890
    , 894, 
    407 S.E.2d 32
    , 35 (1991)).
    Claimant, a welder at the shipyard for over nineteen years,
    first reported complaints of pain and numbness in her hands on
    May 9, 1995 and was diagnosed by the shipyard's medical clinic
    as suffering from bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.     The
    following week, claimant suffered a fall while performing light
    duty work in the SPF shop and injured her left knee.     The
    parties stipulated that claimant's left knee condition
    constituted an "injury by accident" and that her pre-existing
    bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome was not a compensable
    condition.
    - 2 -
    The medical evidence established that on May 17, 1995, Dr.
    Wayne Johnson, orthopedic surgeon, initially treated claimant's
    knee injury.    He diagnosed a "traumatic prepatellar bursitis"
    and recommended conservative treatment.      Dr. Johnson excused
    claimant from work through May 21, 1995 and returned her to
    light duty with restrictions of no bending, stooping, squatting
    or lifting greater than 25 pounds.       On May 24, 1995, Dr. Johnson
    recommended additional work restrictions including no ladder
    climbing and minimum stair climbing through May 31, 1995.
    Claimant was discharged from further treatment of her knee and
    returned to regular duty without restrictions beginning June 1,
    1995.
    During the same period, Dr. Thomas Stiles, orthopedic
    surgeon, treated claimant's carpal tunnel syndrome and performed
    two carpal tunnel release surgeries on September 27, 1995, and
    January 10, 1996.    In the course of treatment for her carpal
    tunnel syndrome, claimant also complained of continued problems
    with her left knee.    Dr. Stiles ordered an MRI examination that
    revealed a "[questionable] tear of the lateral meniscus" and
    "patellar chondromalacia."    Dr. Stiles ultimately recommended
    arthroscopy surgery, which was performed on November 7, 1996.
    He excused claimant from work beginning November 14, 1996
    through January 9, 1997.
    - 3 -
    On February 2, 1997, Dr. Stiles issued permanent knee
    restrictions, including no lifting over 20 pounds, 1 no carrying
    weight more than 100 feet, no crawling, no vertical ladders and
    occasional kneeling and squatting.     Claimant was also under
    permanent wrist restrictions beginning August 7, 1996, which
    included no vertical climbing, no crawling, no vibratory tool
    use, no overhead work and occasional kneeling.
    Claimant testified that her duties as a welder included
    climbing ladders, crawling through holes and carrying a tool bag
    and welding line that weighed approximately 100 pounds.
    Claimant stated that when she was released to work with
    restrictions following her left knee injury, she asked employer
    for light duty work but none was available because of her hand
    restrictions.   John Allen, claimant's supervisor, testified that
    claimant left work on September 25, 1995 for hand surgery and
    never returned.   He admitted that the shipyard did not
    accommodate some of the hand restrictions, but it could have
    accommodated her knee restrictions.
    The commission found that claimant's "bilateral carpal
    tunnel syndrome was preexisting and that work excuses related to
    this problem have no impact on the knee injury's effect on
    claimant's work ability."   Because Dr. Stiles removed claimant
    1
    While the commission noted that claimant was precluded from
    lifting more than "90 pounds," the work restriction form
    indicates, and the parties agree, that claimant was restricted
    from lifting more than "20 pounds."
    - 4 -
    from work following the knee surgery and ultimately recommended
    permanent work restrictions due to that injury, the commission
    found that claimant was entitled to disability compensation
    benefits.
    II.
    Employer first contends that because claimant was under
    permanent hand restrictions for her non-compensable carpal
    tunnel syndrome, she did not sustain a wage earning capacity
    loss due to her knee injury.   However, the evidence supports the
    commission's conclusion that claimant was entitled to temporary
    total and permanent partial disability benefits.   The commission
    found:
    Dr. Stiles' work excuses clearly show
    that the left knee has disabled the claimant
    since the surgery. While she still suffers
    from bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, this
    does not negate the fact that her treating
    physician removed her from regular duties
    due to knee problems. There is no evidence
    that the claimant's knee injury resolved by
    June 1, 1995. The record shows that Dr.
    Stiles continued to treat the knee condition
    and relate[d] it to the compensable
    incident. Regardless [whether] the claimant
    worked after the accident, the medical
    evidence reflects that her knee continued to
    bother her. There is no evidence of another
    intervening accident or cause of the left
    knee problems.
    Because credible medical evidence supports the commission's
    finding, it will be upheld on appeal.
    Employer next contends that the commission erred in finding
    that it had a duty to offer claimant selective employment.
    - 5 -
    Employer argues that the commission failed to consider that
    claimant left her pre-injury employment on September 25, 1995
    for hand surgery and never returned.     Thus, employer concludes,
    the shipyard did not have a duty to offer selective employment
    to claimant within her knee restrictions.
    The commission rejected employer's argument, stating the
    following:
    The claimant sought selective duty from
    the employer but was refused based on hand
    restrictions. There was no evidence that
    the employer offered her employment within
    her knee restrictions. The employer cannot
    argue that the claimant refused selective
    employment without a legitimate offer of
    such. She had permanent light-duty
    restrictions resulting from bilateral carpal
    tunnel syndrome. However, the claimant also
    received separately issued limitations based
    on the compensable knee condition and is
    entitled to benefits accordingly.
    As the commission clearly explained, claimant sought selective
    duty within her knee restrictions, but was refused based upon
    her hand restrictions.    Because selective employment was
    unavailable and credible evidence supports this finding, we
    affirm.
    Affirmed.
    - 6 -