Zinaida R. Soyfer v St. Mary's Hospital, et al.

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton
ZINAIDA R. SOYFER
v. 	Record No. 1879-95-2 	MEMORANDUM OPINION*
PER CURIAM
ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL 	JANUARY 23, 1996
AND
PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURER'S ASSOCIATION
INSURANCE COMPANY
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS'
COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(David C. Jackson, on brief), for appellant.
(Jennifer G. Marwitz; Sands, Anderson, Marks & Miller,
on brief), for appellees.
Zinaida R. Soyfer ("claimant") contends that the Workers'
Compensation Commission erred in finding that she failed to prove
a causal connection between her current condition (consisting of
reflex sympathetic dystrophy ("RSD") of the right upper
extremity, chronic right shoulder pain, and chronic right hand
pain) and her compensable September 28, 1993 injury by accident.
Claimant also argues that the commission erred by not addressing
the issues of whether Dr. I. M. Averbuch's treatment constituted
emergency treatment and whether the failure of St. Mary's
Hospital ("employer") to provide claimant a panel of physicians
justified her seeking treatment from Dr. Averbuch. 	Upon
reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude
*Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.

2
that this appeal is without merit. 	Accordingly, we summarily
affirm the commission's decision. 	Rule 5A:27.
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).
Unless we can say as a matter of law that claimant's evidence
sustained her burden of proving causation, the commission's
findings are binding and conclusive on appeal. 	Tomko v.
Michael's Plastering Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 833, 835
(1970).
The commission held that claimant's evidence did not show
that her September 28, 1993 compensable right shoulder injury
caused her RSD and disability, if any, beginning September 14,
1994. 	In so ruling, the commission found that Dr. Averbuch, who
first diagnosed claimant as suffering from RSD in September 1994,
did not opine whether this condition was caused by claimant's
compensable right shoulder injury or her non-compensable right
carpal tunnel syndrome.1 This finding is supported by the
medical records and will not be disturbed on appeal.
Moreover, Dr. Whipple's medical records do not provide any
evidence of a causal connection between claimant's current
condition and her compensable right shoulder injury. 	On March
1
On February 3, 1994, Dr. Terry Whipple, claimant's initial
treating physician, opined that he could not relate her right
hand symptoms to her compensable right shoulder injury or the
repetitive tasks she performed at work. 	No evidence contradicted
this opinion.

3
24, 1994, Dr. Whipple noted that claimant suffered from "right
upper extremity pain, unknown etiology." 	He also noted that the
report of Hand Management Specialists showed no evidence of
reflex sympathetic dystrophy. 	On May 31, 1994, Dr. Whipple noted
that claimant's shoulder was no longer uncomfortable and he
released her to return to work, without restrictions, as of
June 1, 1994.
Based upon this record, we cannot say as a matter of law
that claimant met her burden of proving that her current
condition and resulting disability, if any, are related to her
compensable right shoulder injury. 	Because our ruling on the
causation issue disposes of this appeal, we need not address the
remaining two questions presented by claimant.
For the reasons stated, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.