William Frezell Crawford v Virginia Electric&Power

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Coleman and Elder
WILLIAM FREZELL CRAWFORD
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. 	Record No. 1125-99-3 	PER CURIAM
OCTOBER 5, 1999
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER COMPANY
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(A. Thomas Lane, Jr., on brief), for
appellant.
(Susan Moloney Smith; Midkiff & Hiner, P.C.,
on brief), for appellee.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
William Frezell Crawford contends that the Workers'
Compensation Commission (commission) erred in finding that he
failed to prove that he sustained an injury by accident arising
out of his employment on March 19, 1997. 	Upon reviewing the
record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this
appeal is without merit. 	Accordingly, we summarily affirm the
commission's decision. 	See Rule 5A:27.
On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the prevailing party below. 	See R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v.
Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). 	To
recover benefits, Crawford must establish that he suffered an
"injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his

employment," Code § 65.2-101, and "that the conditions of the
workplace or some significant work related exertion caused the
injury." 	Plumb Rite Plumbing Serv. v. Barbour, 8 Va. App. 482,
484, 382 S.E.2d 305, 306 (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). 	"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, 8 Va. App. at 483, 382 S.E.2d at
305. 	However, unless we conclude that Crawford proved, as a
matter of law, that his employment caused his injury, the
commission's finding is binding and conclusive upon us. 	See
Tomko v. Michael's Plastering Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d
833, 835 (1970).
Crawford testified that on March 19, 1997, in the course of
his employment as a meter reader, he drove the company regular
size pickup truck to a house, put the truck in park, and
reached over to open the door and reached
back to get my data cap [located to the
right on the seat next to me] and when I
twisted to get out of the truck I got---my
left foot went down and then I felt a real
sharp pain in the back of my back . . . .1
Crawford stated on redirect examination that he "rotated to get
out of the truck faster than I usually do and that is about the
1 A data cap is a small hand-held computer which weighs
three pounds.
- 2 -

only thing else different that I did" than he would normally do
exiting the truck. 	Crawford told his supervisor that he had
twisted his back while exiting his truck. 	In an accident
report, signed by Crawford two days after the incident, Crawford
reported "I was attempting to get out of my truck to go to read
a meter . . . when I felt a sharp pain in my back."2
In denying Crawford's application, the commission found as
follows:
[Crawford's] simple act of exiting the truck
did not expose him to any hazard or risk
attributable to the employment. 	There was
nothing awkward, unusual, peculiar or
strenuous in that movement. . . . 	He was
driving a standard pick-up truck, and there
is no persuasive evidence that the features
of this vehicle were unusual or that they
contributed in any manner to cause his
injury. 	Carrying the data cap did not
entail any significant exertion, and the
employer did not require [Crawford] to rush.
Neither the manner in which [Crawford] was
doing his job nor any condition of the
workplace caused his injury or constituted a
risk of injury to [him].
The evidence established that Crawford did not engage in
any significant exertion, that his simple act picking up the
three-pound data cap and turning to exit his truck did not
involve any awkward position, and that no condition or hazard
peculiar to his workplace caused his injury, aside from the
usual act of turning and exiting a vehicle. 	Therefore, we hold
2 Crawford had a long history of low back pain before March
19, 1997, dating back to as early as 1980.
- 3 -

that Crawford failed to prove as a matter of law that his injury
arose out of his employment.
For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
- 4 -