City of Norfolk v Janet Vaughan

0069951Vactapp

Gesamter Gesetzestext

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Coleman, Willis and Bray
CITY OF NORFOLK
v. 	Record No. 0069-95-1 	MEMORANDUM OPINION*
BY JUDGE SAM W. COLEMAN III
JANET VAUGHAN 	JULY 5, 1995
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Philip R. Trapani, City Attorney; Cynthia B.
Hall, Assistant City Attorney; Office of the
City Attorney, on brief, for appellant.)
Appellant submitting on brief.
No brief or argument for appellee.
The City of Norfolk appeals an award by the Workers'
Compensation Commission to Janet Vaughan for medical benefits.
The issue on appeal is whether the commission erred by
determining that Vaughan's injury arose out of her employment.
For the following reasons, we reverse the commission's decision.
The claimant was employed as a telecommunicator for the
Emergency Services Office of the City of Norfolk. 	One day after
roll call, the claimant and a co-worker were told that they had
been selected for a routine random drug screening. 	Troy
Lapetina, the office coordinator, drove both employees to the
police station for a portion of the test. 	The vehicle was a
standard city-owned, four-door "K" car. 	After performing a
breath test for alcohol, the claimant, the co-worker, and the
* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
-2-
supervisor returned to the car. 	The claimant was bending down
entering the rear driver side door when she hit her head on the
back of the door frame. 	She immediately expressed pain. 	Both
the co-worker and the supervisor asked if she was alright.
The claimant filed a claim for temporary total disability
benefits for three days of work missed due to her injury. 	The
deputy commissioner denied her application because she did not
show that the injury resulted from a risk caused by a condition
of the workplace. 	The commission, on review, found that the
injury arose out of the claimant's employment and entered an
award for medical benefits only.
On appeal we view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the party prevailing before the commission. 	R.G. Moore Bldg.
Corp. v. Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788
(1990). Whether credible evidence exists to support a
factual finding is a question of law which is
properly reviewable on appeal. . . .
Causation is a factual determination to be
made by the commission, but the standards
required to prove causation and whether the
evidence is sufficient to meet those
standards are legal issues which we must
determine.
Hercules, Inc. v. Gunther, 13 Va. App. 357, 361, 412 S.E.2d 185,
187 (1991) (citing Morris v. Morris, 238 Va. 578, 385 S.E.2d 858
(1989)).
In order for an injury to arise out of employment, "a
claimant [must] show that the conditions of the workplace or that
-3-
some significant work related exertion caused the injury. 	The
mere happening of an accident at the workplace, not caused by any
work related risk or significant work related exertion, is not
compensable." 	Plumb Rite Plumbing Serv. v. Barbour, 8 Va. App.
482, 484, 382 S.E.2d 305, 306 (1989); see also Richard E. Brown,
Inc. v. Caporaletti, 12 Va. App. 242, 244, 402 S.E.2d 709, 710
(1991).
An injury that results from a hazard or risk to which the
employee is equally exposed apart from the employment does not
arise out of the employment and is noncompensable. 	United Parcel
Service v. Fetterman, 230 Va. 257, 258, 336 S.E.2d 892, 892
(1985).
No evidence in the record proves that a particular risk
associated with the claimant's work caused her injury. 	See
County of Chesterfield v. Johnson, 237 Va. 180, 376 S.E.2d 73
(1989). 	There was nothing unusual about the car or its door, and
the claimant was not performing any significant work-related
activity when she hit her head on the door frame. 	Nothing about
the manner in which she was doing her job or any condition of the
workplace caused her injury or constituted a risk of injury to
the claimant. 	The commission erred by concluding that the injury
was compensable. 	We therefore reverse the decision of the
commission.
Reversed and dismissed.

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.