Sears Roebuck and Company and et al. v. Joey Wayne Brooks

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Elder, Beales and Senior Judge Annunziata
SEARS ROEBUCK AND COMPANY AND
INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY
OF NORTH AMERICA/ESIS, INC.
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. 	Record No. 1744-10-2 	PER CURIAM
FEBRUARY 15, 2011
JOEY WAYNE BROOKS
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Kevin W. Cloe; Angela F. Gibbs; Midkiff, Muncie & Ross, P.C., on
brief), for appellants.
(Joey W. Brooks, pro se, on brief).
Sears Roebuck and Company, and its insurer Indemnity Insurance Company of North
America/ESIS, Inc. (collectively “employer”) appeal a decision of the Workers’ Compensation
Commission finding Joey Wayne Brooks’ injury arose out of his employment. It contends the
commission erred in concluding (1) Brooks’ injury arose out of a risk peculiar to his
employment; (2) Brooks sustained a compensable injury by accident because no evidence
showed he was in an awkward position when he was injured or that any allegedly awkward
position contributed to the work injury; (3) Brooks was engaged in work-related activities such
as carrying a tire, bending, kneeling, or squatting immediately before the injury because the
evidence established only that the injury was sustained “merely from the act of standing”;
(4) there was evidence Brooks’ work placed him in an awkward position; and (5) there was a
causal connection or inextricable link between the injury and the conditions under which
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.

- 2 -
employer required work to be performed. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s
opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the commission in its final opinion. See Brooks v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., VWC File No.
VA000-0011-1954 (July 20, 2010). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court
and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.