Opinion
Record No. 1476-92-4
January 19, 1993
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Sharon E. Pandak, County Attorney; Angela M. Lemmon, Assistant County Attorney, on briefs), for appellant.
(John K. Coleman; Kathryn A.K. Untiedt; Slenker, Brandt, Jennings Johnston, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Barrow, Moon and Bray
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Worker's Compensation Commission. Rule 5A:27.
Prince William County contends that the commission erred in finding that Thomas Supernaugh's 75% loss of vision in his left eye was causally related to his industrial accident of March 20, 1991.
On appellate review, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed before the commission.R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). Factual findings of the commission will not be disturbed on appeal, if based on credible evidence.Hercules v. Gunther, 13 Va. App. 357, 361, 412 S.E.2d 185, 187 (1991). "A question raised by conflicting medical opinion is a question of fact." Commonwealth v. Powell, 2 Va. App. 712, 714, 347 S.E.2d 532, 533 (1986) (citations omitted).
On March 20, 1991, while working as a security guard for a Prince William County landfill, Supernaugh was struck on the left side of his face by an unknown assailant. He suffered a fracture of the maxillary sinus, an ocular contusion with swelling on the left, and a corneal abrasion to the left eye.
The medical records reveal that Supernaugh's vision in his left eye prior to the March 20, 1991 accident was 20/50 and after the accident it was 20/400. The records also reveal that Supernaugh had sustained a previous injury to his left eye in 1983 when a soft drink bottle exploded. Supernaugh had laser surgery for this injury in 1987 at Johns Hopkins Hospital and was left with a macular scar and a partial loss of vision in the left eye (20/50). Supernaugh testified that the condition of his left eye remained the same from 1987 until his injury on March 20, 1991.
Dr. Brian Egan, ophthalmologist, reported Supernaugh's vision in the left eye as 20/400 after the March 20, 1991 accident. He noted that Supernaugh's loss of vision was due to the macular scar.
Dr. Richard A. Garfinkel, ophthalmologist, performed an independent examination of Supernaugh on December 11, 1991. Dr. Garfinkel reported on December 18, 1991 that he recognized the existence of the macular scar from the previous surgery, but concluded that "[t]he extensive visual field loss cannot at all be explained by that macular scar alone. One could conclude that the remaining field loss and vision loss is due to his injury. . . ."
Here, the full commission held that Supernaugh proved that his current loss of vision, i.e., the change from 20/50 (25 percent) to 20/400 (100 percent), was caused by the industrial injury of March 20, 1991. We find that there is credible evidence to support the commission's determination as to causation.
The commission accepted the opinion of Dr. Garfinkel, which provided credible evidence of the requisite causal connection. Additionally, it was within the purview of the commission to discount the opinion of Dr. Egan because he did not state whether Supernaugh's "poor vision" referred to the earlier 20/50 reading or the current 20/400 reading. Thus, Dr. Egan did not clearly and specifically attribute Supernaugh's current loss of vision to the scar.
Because the commission's decision is supported by competent, credible evidence, its determination as to causation will not be disturbed on appeal.
For the reasons stated, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.