Sentara Norfolk General Hospital v Melvin Spruill

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Elder and Bumgardner
SENTARA NORFOLK GENERAL HOSPITAL
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. 	Record No. 2971—99-1 	PER CURIAM
APRIL 4, 2000
MELVIN L. SPRUILL
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(George J. Dancigers; Patrick M. Mayette;
Heilig, McKenry, Fraim & Lollar, on brief),
for appellant.
(Jeffery L. Nuckolls; Basnight, Kinser,
Telfeyan, Leftwich & Nuckolls, on brief), for
appellee.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
Sentara Norfolk General Hospital (employer) contends that
the Workers' Compensation Commission (commission) erred in
finding that Melvin L. Spruill (claimant) proved that treatment
for his neck condition, surgery, and resulting disability were
causally related to his compensable July 12, 1997 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. 	See
Rule 5A:27.
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). 	"The
actual determination of causation is a factual finding that will
not be disturbed on appeal if there is credible evidence to
support the finding." 	Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Musick, 7 Va. App.
684, 688, 376 S.E.2d 814, 817 (1989). 	"Questions raised by
conflicting medical opinions must be decided by the commission."
Penley v. Island Creek Coal Co., 8 Va. App. 310, 318, 381 S.E.2d
231, 236 (1989).
In holding that claimant met his burden of proving that the
contested surgery, treatment, and disability were causally
related to the July 12, 1997 injury by accident, the commission
found as follows:
[I]t is obvious that the claimant had a
pre-existing degenerative cervical spine.
He suffered severe symptoms of neck pain in
the late 1980s, and failed to report that
history to any of the physicians who have
examined him for the present injury. . . .
. . . [H]owever, we find that
[claimant] had not had any significant
symptoms of neck pain or disability for the
nine years preceding the present work
injury. 	After his accident, he sought
immediate medical attention, and the
treating physicians have documented
progressive neck symptoms from the inception
of his injury. . . .
* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	*
[The claimant] was able to work his normal
job for the five years preceding the work
accident, but was disabled subsequent
thereto. 	Dr. [Isabelle] Richmond, the
treating neurosurgeon, was aware that the
claimant suffered from pre-existing cervical
- 2 -

spondylosis. 	Although she was unaware that
claimant had suffered from neck symptoms in
the remote past, we find that her lack of
knowledge of such remote symptoms does not
seriously undermine her opinions regarding
causation, reasonableness, and necessity of
the surgery. 	The claimant's testimony and
the temporal relationship between the
claimant's injury, neck symptoms,
disability, surgery, and recovery, are
compelling. 	Under the facts of this case,
we would infer the causal relationship
between the work accident and the cervical
spine surgery even without specific medical
opinion of causation.
(Citations omitted.)
The commission relied upon Dr. Richmond's opinion regarding
causation. 	Dr. Richmond opined as follows:
[Claimant] sustained an exacerbation of his
mild, previously asymptomatic cervical
spondylosis as a direct result of his
occupational accident of July 12, 1997. 	His
medically intractable neurologic symptoms
have responded well to cervical diskectomy
and fusion. . . . 	The interval change
between his MR scans of August 14, 1997 and
October 7, 1997 of progression from mild
"degenerative changes at C5-6" to "advanced
degenerative changes at C5-6" are highly
consistent with post-traumatic changes as
opposed to the gradual "aging process" as
suggested by Dr. Colin Hamilton.
"Medical evidence is not necessarily conclusive, but is
subject to the commission's consideration and weighing."
Hungerford Mechanical Corp. v. Hobson, 11 Va. App. 675, 677, 401
S.E.2d 213, 214 (1991). 	In its role as fact finder, the
commission was entitled to weigh the medical evidence, to accept
Dr. Richmond's opinion, and to reject any contrary medical
- 3 -

opinions. 	Claimant's medical records and Dr. Richmond's
opinions, coupled with claimant's testimony, constitute credible
evidence to support the commission's decision. 	The commission
articulated legitimate reasons for crediting Dr. Richmond's
opinions despite claimant's failure to provide Dr. Richmond with
a complete medical history. 	Because credible evidence supports
the commission's findings, we will not disturb them on appeal.
For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
- 4 -