 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bassett-Walker Inc. v. Wyatt3/4/1997
15 Va. App. 17, 21, 421 S.E.2d 32, 34-35 (1992) (stooping and crouching incidental to fixing pipes was a condition of employment that exposed claimant to the risk of back injury).
The majority contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the commission's finding that the length and number of times that claimant was required to squat contributed to her injury . I disagree. On appeal, we should view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below. 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). "Where reasonable inferences may be drawn from the evidence in support of the commission's factual findings, they will not be disturbed by this Court on appeal." Hawks v. Henrico County Sch. Bd., 7 Va. App. 398, 404, 374 S.E.2d 695, 698 (1988).
Because I would affirm the decision of the commission, I address other aspects of appellant's argument. Appellant erroneously asserts that claimant was required to offer direct medical evidence in order to prove the causal connection between her working conditions and her injury . While a claimant has the burden of proving that his injury arose out of his employment, this may be proved by circumstantial evidence; the causal connection between his employment and his injury need only be apparent to the rational mind by a preponderance of the evidence. See Baggett & Meador Cos. v. Dillon, 219 Va. 633, 637-38, 248 S.E.2d 819, 822 (1978). Furthermore, Dr. Perry attributed the cause of the injury to the March 13, 1995 squatting incident.
Appellant also contends that, even if the evidence supports the finding of the commission, claimant's injury is not compensable under the Act because the commission found that the injury was a cumulative trauma caused by repetitive squatting. I disagree. While job -related impairments resulting from cumulative trauma caused by repetitive motion are not compensable under the Act, Stenrich Group v. Jemmott, 251 Va. 186, 199, 467 S.E.2d 795, 802 (1996), the commission did not conclude that her injury resulted from a cumulative trauma. Instead, the commission found that the medial meniscus in claimant's left knee was damaged once, on March 13, and that this injury followed as a natural incident of regular exposure to 200 squats per shift. The commission characterized the extensive squatting as "a risk connected with the employment" and did not find that the squats injured claimant by slowly inflicting a cumulative trauma upon her knee. Because reasonable inferences from credible evidence support this finding, we should not disturb it on appeal. I would affirm the decision of the commission.
Page 1 2 3 Virginia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|