Anheuser Busch Co, Inc, et al v John G. Stevens Jr

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton
ANHEUSER BUSCH COMPANY, INC.
AND
PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY 	MEMORANDUM OPINION*
PER CURIAM
v. 	Record No. 2254-95-1 	MARCH 26, 1996
JOHN G. STEVENS, JR.
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS'
COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(William C. Walker; Bradford C. Jacob;
Taylor & Walker, on brief), for appellants.
No brief for appellee.
Anheuser Busch Company, Inc. and its insurer (hereinafter
collectively referred to as "employer") contend that the Workers'
Compensation Commission erred in finding that John G. Stevens
("claimant") sustained an injury by accident arising out of his
employment on July 6, 1994. 	Upon reviewing the record and
employer's brief, we find that this appeal is without merit.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's decision. 	Rule
5A:27.
*Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
On appeal, we 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). 	A
finding by the commission that an injury did or did not arise out
of the employment is a mixed finding of law and fact and is

2
properly reviewable on appeal. 	Jones v. Colonial Williamsburg
Found., 8 Va. App. 432, 434, 382 S.E.2d 300, 301 (1989). 	The
phrase "arising out of" refers to the origin or cause of the
injury. 	County of Chesterfield v. Johnson, 237 Va. 180, 183, 376
S.E.2d 73, 74 (1989). 	To prevail, claimant must "show that the
conditions of the workplace . . . caused the injury." 	Plumb Rite
Plumbing Serv. v. Barbour, 8 Va. App. 482, 484, 382 S.E.2d 305,
306 (1989).
In ruling that claimant's injuries arose out of his
employment, the commission found as follows:
The claimant testified that he walked through
an area of the plant where the concrete
floors had just been hosed down. 	This area
adjoined the double doors which exited onto
the platform where the claimant slipped. 	As
he approached the top step, both feet slipped
out from under him, and he slid down four
concrete steps with worn steel caps.
Although the company nurse did not detect any
wetness on his shoe, she did not deny that
the floor area leading to the platform had
just been hosed down and was wet.
Claimant's testimony constitutes credible evidence to
support the commission's factual findings. 	Based upon these
findings, the commission could reasonably conclude that
in all likelihood the slip was related to the
fact that the claimant had to walk across a
wet concrete floor to reach the steps . . .
[and] that the worn steel caps may have
contributed to the fall, and that the extent
of the injury was added to by the nature of
the steps, which were concrete and steel.
The commission, in its role as fact finder, was entitled to give
more weight to claimant's testimony than to the testimony of the

3
company nurse.
"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). 	Here, the
evidence supported an inference that conditions of the work
place, i.e., the wet concrete floor and the worn steel caps,
caused claimant's injuries.
Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.