Shenandoah, etc. v. Gary Douglas Pruett ( 1995 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Benton and Overton
Argued at Salem, Virginia
SHENANDOAH INDUSTRIAL RUBBER COMPANY
and INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA
v. Record No. 2445-94-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
JUDGE JAMES W. BENTON, JR.
GARY DOUGLAS PRUETT DECEMBER 5, 1995
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
Ronnie L. Clay (Monica L. Taylor; Gentry,
Locke, Rakes & Moore, on briefs), for appellants.
Richard M. Thomas (Rider, Thomas, Cleaveland,
Ferris & Eakin, on brief), for appellee.
Shenandoah Industrial Rubber Company contends that no
credible evidence supports the commission's finding that Gary
Douglas Pruett proved by a preponderance of the evidence that his
disability was caused by a work related incident. We affirm the
commission's award.
When the commission's findings of fact are supported by
credible evidence, those findings are conclusive and binding on
this Court. Code § 65.2-706(A); Jules Hairstylists, Inc. v.
Galanes, 1 Va. App. 64, 68, 334 S.E.2d 592, 595 (1985). In our
review to determine whether credible evidence supports the
commission's findings, we must view the evidence in the light
most favorable to Pruett, the party who prevailed before the
commission. States Roofing Corp. v. Bush Constr. Corp., 15 Va.
App. 613, 616, 426 S.E.2d 124, 126 (1993).
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
So viewed, the evidence proved that Pruett and Alan Plucker
were lifting a 200 pound vulcanizer on the morning of July 15,
1993, when Pruett experienced a pop in his lower back and dropped
the machine. Pruett immediately stopped working and rested in a
truck. Plucker received assistance from other men in lifting the
vulcanizer.
Pruett informed his employer of his injury the following
day. The employer completed the First Report of Accident on July
19 and recorded that Pruett "bent over to pick up the vulcanizer
and injured his back." Later that day, Pruett visited Dr.
Darrell F. Powledge. After his examination revealed a herniated
disk, Dr. Powledge referred Pruett to Dr. Leipzig who performed
back surgery. Both doctors reported that the injury was the
result of heavy lifting by Pruett.
Relying upon the deputy commissioner's "serious reservations
with respect to the credibility of this claimant," Shenandoah
contends that no medical evidence links Pruett's injury to
lifting the vulcanizer and that the commission erred in reversing
the deputy commissioner's credibility finding. We disagree. In
finding that Pruett proved by a preponderance of the evidence an
injury by accident causally related to his employment, the
commission found that Pruett's testimony was consistent with the
documentary and medical evidence. The record contains evidence
from Pruett's co-worker that describes, consistent with Pruett's
testimony, an onset of pain when Pruett lifted the 200 pound
- 2 -
vulcanizer. The record also proved that Pruett reported the
incident and injury to Shenandoah on the day following the
incident.
The commission also found that the medical reports are
consistent with Pruett's testimony and the First Report of
Accident. Although the medical reports describe three days of
heavy lifting as contributing to Pruett's discomfort, the
commission found that those reports do "not conflict with the
happening of a discrete injury by accident." In support of that
finding, the evidence proved that Pruett informed the doctors of
the specific incident. The evidence proved that on the same day
Pruett gave the employer the report of the specific incident
occurring on July 15, he saw Dr. Powledge. Pruett's testimony
that he reported the incident to Dr. Powledge is supported by a
notation on one of Dr. Powledge's reports indicating the
following: "D/A: 7-15-93 . . . back . . . lifting vulcanizer."
This evidence is credible support for the commission's
findings that the medical report, the First Report of Accident,
and the co-worker's testimony all contain evidence of a
compensable injury by accident. As found by the commission,
those reports and testimony are consistent with Pruett's
testimony. Thus, we hold that the commission has "articulate[d]
a basis for its . . . conclusion that is supported by credible
evidence in the record." Williams v. Auto Brokers, 6 Va. App.
570, 575, 370 S.E.2d 321, 324 (1988). See also Goodyear Tire &
- 3 -
Rubber Company v. Pierce, 5 Va. App. 374, 383, 363 S.E.2d 433,
438 (1987). Accordingly, we affirm the commission's award.
Affirmed.
- 4 -