From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fairfax Hospital v. Mitchell

Court of Appeals of Virginia. Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
Mar 7, 1995
Record No. 1729-94-4 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 1995)

Opinion

Record No. 1729-94-4

Decided: March 7, 1995

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION

Eric J. Berghold (Miles Stockbridge, on brief), for appellants.

Lawrence J. Pascal (Ashcraft Gerel, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Judges Barrow, Fitzpatrick and Senior Judge Duff


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to Code Sec. 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.


In this workers' compensation case, Fairfax Hospital and Inova Health System Foundation, Inc. (collectively referred to as employer) appeal the commission's decision awarding benefits to Laurie L. Mitchell (claimant). Employer argues that the commission erred in finding credible evidence that claimant's injury arose out of her employment. Both parties agree that the commission erred in determining the amount of benefits and the periods of disability. We affirm the commission's finding of compensability but remand for a recalculation of benefits.

On March 12, 1993, Laurie Mitchell (claimant) sprained her ankle while working as a unit secretary for employer. Claimant slipped as she was walking down a well-lit, level hallway made of marble tile. When claimant fell, both feet slipped at the same time. In the accident report, claimant asserted that her fall was due to "foreign material on [the] floor." Claimant did not see or smell any substance on the floor and could not identify the substance. However, claimant reported that the floor was shiny and that a substance on the floor caused her fall. The commission found claimant's consistent and early assertion that a substance was on the floor sufficient evidence that a risk of employment existed and that claimant's injury arose out of her employment.

On appeal, "we must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to claimant, as the prevailing party below. Factual findings of the commission will not be disturbed on appeal, if based upon credible evidence." DePaul Medical Ctr. v. Brickhouse, 18 Va. App. 506, 507, 445 S.E.2d 494, 495 (1994) (citation omitted). " 'If there is evidence, or reasonable inferences can be drawn from the evidence, to support the Commission's findings, they will not be disturbed on review, even though there is evidence in the record to support a contrary finding.' " Marketing Profiles, Inc. v. Hill, 17 Va. App. 431, 435, 437 S.E.2d 727, 730 (1993).

In this case, the commission found credible evidence that claimant fell because of a substance located on the floor. Claimant testified that a foreign substance that made the floor appear shiny caused her to fall and that both feet slipped at the same time. Although claimant could not identify the substance, she repeatedly stated that a substance was on the floor. No evidence in the record supports a contrary finding. Thus, the commission was reasonable in inferring from claimant's testimony that a substance on the floor caused her fall and that her fall arose in the course of her employment.

The parties stipulate that the commission erred in calculating claimant's benefits and the periods of disability. Accordingly, we affirm the commission's finding of compensability and remand for a redetermination of the award amount.

Affirmed, reversed, and remanded.


Summaries of

Fairfax Hospital v. Mitchell

Court of Appeals of Virginia. Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
Mar 7, 1995
Record No. 1729-94-4 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 1995)
Case details for

Fairfax Hospital v. Mitchell

Case Details

Full title:FAIRFAX HOSPITAL AND INOVA HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION, INC. v. LAURIE L…

Court:Court of Appeals of Virginia. Argued at Alexandria, Virginia

Date published: Mar 7, 1995

Citations

Record No. 1729-94-4 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 1995)

Citing Cases

Gutierrez v. Perdue Farms, Inc.

See Hill, 44 Va.App. at 732. Meza Gutierrez asserts that a contrary result is compelled by the Commission's…

City of Portsmouth v. Grant

The commission held that claimant's injury arose out of his employment in that it was caused by a condition…