Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Success Stories of Personal Injury Lawyers Directory US Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Canada Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Resource Directory
Search Lawyers by Zip Code
facebook.com/injury.usa

  to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.

Reynolds Metals Co. v. Shifflett

11/26/1996

aimant did not replicate the exact movement for the Deputy Commissioner because of medical restrictions." Indeed, the record shows that claimant demonstrated only the bending motion involved, not the complete task of bending and reaching. The deputy commissioner's decision failed to address the entire task involved here, which required more than bending. It observed:


"We find that at the time of her injury , Shifflett had performed a normal movement of bending forward from the waist in order to reach an object located approximately 8 inches above floor level."


" maneuver involved the simple act of bending forward, and the resulting injury was unrelated to a risk or causative hazard of the employment." (Emphasis added.)


We find that the evidence supports the commission's Conclusion that claimant's movement involved more than simple bending and that, as the causative factor in the case, the bending and reaching movement described was peculiar to the job . See Grove v. Allied Signal, Inc., 15 Va. App. 17, 22, 421 S.E.2d 32, 35 (1992) (pipe fitter's injury resulting from bending and reaching for pipe had origin in risk connected with employment). Further, we find no evidence that bending and simultaneous reaching into a baling machine in the manner described is a hazard to which claimant would have been equally exposed apart from her employment. Contrary to employer's contention, this case is readily distinguished from Fetterman, where the employee's injury resulted from his bending to tie his shoe while he was at work.


II.


The only question employer presented pursuant to Rule 5A:25 was " hether the ommission erred as a matter of law in finding that the claimant sustained an injury by accident arising out of her employment." Accordingly, we decline to address employer's additional contention, raised in its brief, that the commission erred in awarding temporary total disability benefits subsequent to September 12, 1995.


According, the commission's decision is affirmed. Affirmed.




Page 1 2 

Virginia Personal Injury Attorneys    Personal Injury Lawyers


  to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.

Personal Injury Lawyers Brain Injuries Spinal Cord Injuries
Quadriplegia and Paraplegia Back Injuries Ruptured & Herniated Disks
Bulging Disk Neck Injuries Dog Bites
Toxic Mold Product Liability Fire Accidents
Trucking Accidents Boating Accidents Car Accidents
Plane Crashes Medical Malpractice Motorcycle Accidents
Wrongful Death Personal Injury Lawsuits Testimonial
FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads  |  Partner Websites
DUI Defense  |  SiteMap  | PI Blog  | Trading Partners | Attorney Registration  | PI Case Laws  | FAQ | Personal Injury Forum
 | Personal Injury Lawyers Directory  | Success Stories  | Press Releases
Copyright © 2005. “National Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (NAPIL)”. All rights reserved.
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE