"The Commission is not bound by the findings of a deputy commissioner." Hess v. Virginia State Police, 68 Va.App. 190, 194 (2017); see Code § 65.2-705(A).
, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below." Hess v. Virginia State Police, 68 Va.App. 190, 194 (2017) (quoting Advance Auto & Indem. Ins. Co. v. Craft, 63 Va.App. 502, 508 (2014)).
"On appeal, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below." Hess v. Virginia State Police, 68 Va.App. 190, 194 (2017) (quoting Advance Auto & Indem. Ins. Co. v. Craft, 63 Va.App. 502, 508 (2014)). "[F]actual findings of the [C]ommission will not be disturbed if based on credible evidence."
"[T]he words 'in the course of' refer to the time, place and circumstances under which the accident occurred." Hess v. Virginia State Police, 68 Va. App. 190, 196 (2017) (quoting Conner, 203 Va. at 208). An injury "occurs in the 'course of employment' when it takes place within the period of employment, at a place where the employee may be reasonably expected to be, and while he is reasonably fulfilling the duties of his employment or is doing something which is reasonably incidental thereto."
This conclusion is reinforced by this Court’s analysis of when a claimant has suffered a "sudden shock or fright." This Court excludes those "shocks" or "frights" that are "an expected occurrence in the performance of [the claimant’s] duties." Hess v. Va. State Police, 68 Va. App. 190, 198, 806 S.E.2d 413 (2017) (quoting Hercules, Inc. v. Gunther, 13 Va. App. 357, 363, 412 S.E.2d 185 (1991) ). For example, in Hess, this Court held a state trooper’s post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD") was not an "injury by accident" because the shock of responding to a gruesome fatal accident scene is "an expected occurrence in the performance of his duties."
"On appeal, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to . . . the prevailing party below." Hess v. Va. State Police, 68 Va. App. 190, 194, 806 S.E.2d 413, 415 (2017) (quoting Advance Auto & Indem. Ins. Co. v. Craft, 63 Va. App. 502, 508, 759 S.E.2d 17, 20 (2014)). "[F]actual findings of the [C]omission will not be disturbed if based on credible evidence."
The "factual findings of the [C]ommission will not be disturbed if based on credible evidence." Hess v. Va. State Police, 68 Va.App. 190, 194 (2017) (quoting Anthony v. Fairfax Cnty. Dep't of Family Servs., 36 Va.App. 98, 103 (2001)).
The "factual findings of the commission will not be disturbed if based on credible evidence." Hess v. Virginia State Police, 68 Va.App. 190, 194 (2017) (quoting Anthony v. Fairfax Cty. Dep't of Family Servs., 36 Va.App. 98, 103 (2001)).
"[F]actual findings of the [C]ommission will not be disturbed if based on credible evidence." Hess v. Va. State Police, 68 Va.App. 190, 194 (2017) (quoting Anthony v. Fairfax Cnty. Dep't of Fam. Servs., 36 Va.App. 98, 103 (2001)). To determine whether credible evidence supports the Commission's factual findings, "the appellate court does not retry the facts, reweigh the preponderance of the evidence, or make its own determination of the credibility of the witnesses."
"[F]actual findings of the [C]ommission will not be disturbed if based on credible evidence." Hess v. Virginia State Police, 68 Va.App. 190, 194 (2017) (quoting Anthony v. Fairfax Cnty. Dep't of Fam. Servs., 36 Va.App. 98, 103 (2001)). "[U]nlike the Commission, the reviewing court is not charged with determining anew whether the employer's evidence of causation should be accorded sufficient weight to constitute a preponderance of the evidence on that issue."