Carol Huffman v Carilion Rke Memorial Hosp., et al

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINA
Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Frank

CAROL HUFFMAN
MEMORANDUM OPI NI ON*
Vv. Record No. 0995- 99-3 PER CURI AM
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
CARI LI ON ROANOKE MENORI AL HOSPITAL AND
PENNSYLVAN A MANUFACTURERS ASSOCI ATT ON
T NSURANCE COMPANY

FROM THE VI RGI N A WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMM SSI ON
(WlliamH Fralin, Jr.; Jolly, Place,
Fralin & Prillanan, P.C., on briefs), for
appel | ant.

(Rchard D Lucas; T. Borden Ellis; Carter,
Brow. & Osborne, P.C., on brief), for
appel l ees.

Carol Huffman (clainant) contends that the Wrkers'
Conpensation Conmssion (conmssion) erred in finding that she
failed to prove that she sustained an injury by accident arising
out of her enploynent on January 28, 1998. Upon reviewng the
record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this

appeal is Wthout nerit. Accordingly, we sunnarily affirmthe

commission’s decision. See Rule 5A: 27.!

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.

‘ Wé find no nerit in claimant's argunent that the
conmssion's decision should be reversed because it inproperly
relied upon unpublished opinions of this Court. The
conmssion's decision is fully supported by published case law
Moreover, the conmssion did not err by considering the

- 2 -
On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the prevailing party below. 	See R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v.
Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). 	To
recover benefits, claimant must establish that she suffered an
"injury by accident arising out of and in the course of [her]
employment," Code § 65.2-101, and "that the conditions of the
workplace or that some significant work related exertion caused
the injury." 	Plumb Rite Plumbing Serv. v. Barbour, 8 Va. App.
482, 484, 382 S.E.2d 305, 306 (1989). 	"The phrase arising 'out
of' refers to the origin or cause of the injury." 	County of
Chesterfield v. Johnson, 237 Va. 180, 183, 376 S.E.2d 73, 74
(1989). 	"Whether an injury arises out of the employment is a
mixed question of law and fact and is reviewable by the
appellate court." 	Plumb Rite, 8 Va. App. at 483, 382 S.E.2d at
305. 	However, unless we conclude that claimant proved, as a
matter of law, that her employment caused her injury, the
commission's finding is binding and conclusive on appeal. 	See
Tomko v. Michael's Plastering Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d
833, 835 (1970).
Claimant, a home health care registered nurse, injured her
back while lifting a plastic water basin she used to clean a
rationale contained in a factually similar unpublished opinion
of this Court and adopting that rationale to the extent it was
persuasive. 	See Fairfax County School Bd. v. Rose, 29 Va. App.
32, 39 n.3, 509 S.E.2d 525, 528 n.3 (1999).

- 3 -
patient's ventilator tube. 	Claimant worked in the patient's
home and stored the empty water basin on the floor in a small
closet. 	Claimant testified that when she went to retrieve the
basin on January 28, 1998, she was looking up because of her
concern that the family's cat might jump out, which it had done
on occasion. 	She also stated that she had her hand on the
closet doorknob as she retrieved the basin. 	While straightening
up with the basin in her hand, she felt pain in her back. 	In
her February 24, 1998 recorded statement, she denied that she
bent down in an awkward fashion to pick up the basin.
In denying claimant's application, the commission found as
follows:
We find nothing unusual or awkward about the
way the claimant lifted the empty basin.
The basin had no significant weight and
therefore lifting it did not involve any
significant exertion. 	There was nothing
about the size of the closet which
restricted or obstructed her movements. 	We
find no evidence of any awkward or unusual
movement by the claimant caused by the
claimant's work environment which caused her
injury.
The evidence established that claimant did not engage in
any significant exertion, that her action of looking for the cat
as she reached for the basin did not involve any awkward
movement or position, and that no condition or hazard peculiar
to her workplace caused her injury. 	Therefore, we hold that
claimant failed to prove as a matter of law that her injury
arose out of her employment.

For these reasons, we affirmthe conmssion's decision.

Af firned.