Kenneth Lee Carroll v. Roland Vaults Ltd. ( 2001 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Willis, Humphreys and Senior Judge Overton
Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia
KENNETH LEE CARROLL
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. Record No. 2704-00-1 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR.
JUNE 5, 2001
ROLAND VAULTS, LTD. AND
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
Steven M. Oser for appellant.
Warren H. Britt (Warren H. Britt, P.C., on
brief), for appellees.
On appeal, Kenneth Lee Carroll contends that the Workers'
Compensation Commission erred in holding that he failed to prove
that he sustained an injury by accident arising out of his
employment. Finding no error, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
On June 21, 1999, Carroll was employed by State
Manufacturing Company as a truck driver. His duties required
him to deliver burial vaults to a cemetery in Norfolk. He had
been to this cemetery several times previously.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
After making his delivery, Carroll stopped to use the
restroom at the cemetery office. While walking down the steps
leaving the restroom, he slipped and fell, injuring his back.
Carroll filed a claim for benefits. At the hearing, he
introduced photographs of the steps and stated that they were
painted with "latex house paint." The photographs showed that
the steps were of uneven size. Carroll testified that, on the
day of the accident, he was not intoxicated and he had no
existing leg or back condition that may have caused the
accident. He did not testify that the slightly varied height or
width of the steps caused him to fall. He admitted that he did
not know whether the design of the steps violated a building
code.
The deputy commissioner held that Carroll "failed to prove
that some unusual condition was present which caused[,] or
contributed to cause[,] the accident." He concluded that
Carroll's fall and injury had not been proven to arise out of
his employment and denied benefits. The full commission
affirmed.
II. ANALYSIS
On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the party prevailing below. See R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v.
Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). A
finding by the commission that an injury did or did not arise
- 2 -
out of and in the course of employment is a mixed finding of law
and fact and is properly reviewable on appeal. See City of
Richmond v. Braxton, 230 Va. 161, 163-64, 335 S.E.2d 259, 261
(1985).
In order to prove that an injury "arose out of" his
employment, a claimant must prove "a causal connection between
the conditions under which the work is required to be performed
and the resulting injury." Richmond Mem'l Hosp. v. Crane, 222
Va. 283, 285, 278 S.E.2d 877, 878 (1981). "An accident arises
out of the employment when there is a causal connection between
the claimant's injury and the conditions under which the
employer requires the work to be performed." United Parcel
Service v. Fetterman, 230 Va. 257, 258, 336 S.E.2d 892, 893
(1985) (citation omitted). Furthermore, "the arising out of
test excludes 'an injury which comes from a hazard to which the
employee would have been equally exposed apart from the
employment. The causative danger must be peculiar to the work,
incidental to the character of the business, and not independent
of the master-servant relationship.'" County of Chesterfield v.
Johnson, 237 Va. 180, 183-84, 376 S.E.2d 73, 75 (1989) (quoting
Fetterman, 230 Va. at 258-59, 336 S.E.2d at 893). Thus, a
condition of the workplace must cause or contribute to the fall,
and the fall must cause the injury. Id. at 184, 376 S.E.2d at
- 3 -
75. There must be a "critical link between the conditions of
the workplace and the injury." Id. at 186, 376 S.E.2d at 76.
Carroll presented no evidence that a condition peculiar to
his employment caused him to slip and fall. He simply testified
that he slipped and fell. Although his application for benefits
alleged various defects in the steps, he neither testified about
these conditions nor presented evidence that any such condition
caused him to fall. He did not testify to any defect in the
steps, except to say that he perceived them to be "unsafe." He
made no causal connection between the slight height or width
discrepancy of the steps and his fall. He did not assert that a
foreign substance on the steps caused him to slip. The bare
fact that the steps were painted with "latex house paint" did
not prove that they were slippery.
We affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
- 4 -