Richard W. Bridges v Progressive Printing, et al.

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
RICHARD W. BRIDGES MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. 	Record No. 0887-98-4 	PER CURIAM
AUGUST 18, 1998
PROGRESSIVE PRINTING
AND
FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(James D. Alvey; Alvey & Alvey, on briefs),
for appellant. 	Appellant submitting on
brief.
(Robert M. McAdam; David W. Hearn; Wooten &
Hart, on brief), for appellees. 	Appellees
submitting on brief.
Richard W. Bridges appeals from a decision of the Workers'
Compensation Commission holding that he failed to prove that he
was injured in an accident arising out of his employment.
Finding no error, we affirm.
On January 22, 1997, Bridges was employed by Progressive
Printing ("employer") as a truck driver. 	His job duties required
that he deliver boxes of printing materials and pick up supplies
at various locations. 	On that date, Bridges went to H&H Bindery
to make a pick-up. 	As he descended the stairs in H&H Bindery's
building, he fell and injured his back.
Bridges testified that, as he ascended the second set of
stairs, which were wooden, one of the customer's employees,
*Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.

- 2 -
Elaine Watson, informed him that the person Bridges intended to
visit was not upstairs. 	As Bridges turned to descend the stairs,
he fell. 	He attempted to break his fall by grabbing a banister,
causing him to fall backwards and hit his back against the corner
of a block wall in the stairwell.
Bridges described the stairs and his fall as follows:
As you walk in the door, there is four or
five concrete steps, a small landing. 	There
is the wooden steps that go upstairs to the
offices. 	I had started up the wooden steps.
I had taken approximately two or three steps
up when, again I was yelled at, that Mitch
was not up there. 	And I turned to come back
down and that's when I fell. 	I tried to
catch myself and, and was not able to and
fell backwards into the wall.
Bridges measured the stairs approximately six to eight weeks
after the accident. 	He estimated that the concrete steps
measured ten inches in depth and seven inches in height and that
the wooden steps measured ten inches in depth and eight and
one-half inches in height. 	At the time of the fall, Bridges was
not carrying anything and the lighting in the stairwell was
adequate.
In his February 19, 1997 recorded statement to employer's
insurance adjuster, Bridges admitted that he did not know the
cause of his fall. 	Bridges stated, "I . . . turned around to
come back down and when I did I apparently missed a step I don't
know what happened I really don't I don't know how I fell but I
was coming down because I stepped back down." 	Bridges further
stated, "[W]hen I stepped back with my left foot apparently I

- 3 -
only got a part of the step or landing whatever it was with the
front part of my foot and that's when I fell." 	In his recorded
statement, Bridges denied slipping, tripping, or twisting, but
admitted that he stumbled.
The commission, in affirming the deputy commissioner, found
that Bridges failed to prove that "some work place factor beyond
the steps or stairs contributed to his accident." 	The commission
further found that the evidence showed that "the stairs were
neither unusual [n]or defective and that the lighting in the
stairwell did not contribute to [Bridges'] fall."1
"Whether an injury arises out of the employment is a mixed
question of law and fact and is reviewable by the appellate
court." 	Plumb Rite Plumbing Serv. v. Barbour, 8 Va. App. 482,
483, 382 S.E.2d 305, 305 (1989). 	But, unless we conclude that
Bridges proved, as a matter of law, that his employment caused
his injury, the commission's finding is binding and conclusive on
appeal. 	See Tomko v. Michael's Plastering Co., 210 Va. 697, 699,
173 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1970).
"The claimant had the burden of establishing, by a
preponderance of the evidence, and not merely by conjecture or
speculation, that [he] suffered an injury by accident which arose
out of . . . the employment." 	Central State Hosp. v. Wiggers,
1The commission also found that Bridges did not prove that
his fall occurred as a result of a distraction. 	Bridges
abandoned this argument on appeal. 	Therefore, we will not
address it.

- 4 -
230 Va. 157, 159, 335 S.E.2d 257, 258 (1985). 	"To prove the
'arising out of' element, [in a case involving injuries sustained
from falling down stairs at work,] [Bridges] must show that a
condition of the workplace either caused or contributed to [his]
fall." 	Southside Virginia Training Ctr. v. Shell, 20 Va. App.
199, 202, 455 S.E.2d 761, 763 (1995) (citing County of
Chesterfield v. Johnson, 237 Va. 180, 184, 376 S.E.2d 73, 76
(1989)). 	This analysis "excludes an injury which cannot fairly
be traced to the employment as a contributing proximate cause and
which comes from a hazard to which the [claimant] would have been
equally exposed apart from the employment." 	R & T Investments,
Ltd. v. Johns, 228 Va. 249, 253, 321 S.E.2d 287, 289 (1984).
Although Bridges was in the course of his employment when
his injury occurred, his evidence did not show that any defect in
the stairs or any condition peculiar to his employment caused him
to fall down the stairs and injure himself. 	Bridges could not
explain why he may have missed a step. 	Moreover, contrary to
Bridges' assertions on appeal, no evidence showed that the size
or design of the steps played any role in causing his fall, or
created an added risk peculiar to his employment. 	Because no
evidence showed a causal connection between the conditions of
Bridges' employment and his fall, we cannot find that he proved,
as a matter of law, that his injury arose out of his employment.
For the reasons stated, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.