Steadman v. Liberty Fabrics, Inc., Record No. 0621-03-3.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Virginia
Citation589 S.E.2d 465,41 Va. App. 796
Docket NumberRecord No. 0621-03-3.
PartiesVirginia Louise STEADMAN v. LIBERTY FABRICS, INC. and Connecticut Indemnity Company.
Decision Date16 December 2003

589 S.E.2d 465
41 Va.
App. 796

Virginia Louise STEADMAN
v.
LIBERTY FABRICS, INC. and Connecticut Indemnity Company

Record No. 0621-03-3.

Court of Appeals of Virginia, Salem.

December 16, 2003.


589 S.E.2d 466
Wanda A. Dotson (George L. Townsend; Chandler, Franklin & O'Bryan, Staunton, on briefs), for appellant

Lisa Frisina Clement, Midlothian (PennStuart, on brief), for appellees.

Present: HUMPHREYS, FELTON and KELSEY, JJ.

WALTER S. FELTON, JR, Judge.

Virginia Steadman appeals a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission denying her benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act. The commission held that claimant failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that her carpal tunnel syndrome ("CTS") was not caused by activities outside of employment as required by Code § 65.2-401. For the following reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.

BACKGROUND

On appeal, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below. R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. Mullins, 10 Va.App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). "`Whether a disease is causally related to the employment and not causally related to other factors is . . . a finding of fact.'" Ross Laboratories v. Barbour, 13 Va.App. 373, 377, 412 S.E.2d 205, 208 (1991) (quoting Island Creek Coal Co. v. Breeding, 6 Va. App. 1, 12, 365 S.E.2d 782, 788 (1988)). We will not disturb the commission's factual findings when supported by credible evidence. Ross, 13 Va. App. at 378, 412 S.E.2d at 208.

Virginia Steadman worked as a "set-up mechanic" for fourteen and a half years with Liberty Fabrics, Inc.1 The record showed

589 S.E.2d 467
that her duties as a "set-up mechanic" involved constant hand movement and required the use of various hand-tools, including wrenches, ratchets, screwdrivers, and electric drills. Prior to her employment by Liberty Fabrics, Steadman worked as a deli manager and in a sewing factory

Steadman testified she first experienced symptoms of CTS when she began dropping items at home and at work. As a result, she saw Dr. John T. Philbrick in July 2001, complaining that her hands felt as if they were asleep. On December 8, 2001, Liberty Fabrics eliminated her position. The plant ceased operations shortly thereafter. At this time, Steadman was thirty-six years old and had a tenth grade education.

On December 19, 2001, Dr. Philbrick diagnosed Steadman as having carpal tunnel syndrome during a routine examination. Subsequent nerve conduction tests confirmed the diagnosis. In his Attending Physician's Report dated January 28, 2002, Dr. Philbrick stated that she suffered from bilateral CTS caused by repetitive motion and overuse of hands at work. Steadman testified she told Dr. Philbrick about her duties at work. Dr. Philbrick also referred her to Dr. Raymond F. Morgan, an orthopedic surgeon, who confirmed the diagnosis and recommended surgery to accomplish a right carpal tunnel release.

On February 14, 2002, Steadman filed a claim for benefits with the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission, alleging bilateral CTS arising from her employment with Liberty Fabrics, Inc. On June 20, 2002, Deputy Commissioner Tabb conducted a hearing on Steadman's claim. Liberty Fabrics, Inc., and its insurer, Connecticut Indemnity Company (hereafter collectively known as "Liberty Fabrics"), defended on the grounds that Steadman did not suffer from a compensable ordinary disease of life pursuant to Code § 65.2-401. Liberty Fabrics further asserted that she was not disabled during the period requested and that she failed to market her residual work capacity after March 2002.

In his June 26, 2002 opinion, the deputy commissioner found that Steadman proved she had sustained a compensable ordinary disease of life pursuant to Code § 65.2-401.2 He also found "the medical evidence was clear and convincing, and not a mere probability," to support her claim that the injury was work related. Finally, the deputy commissioner determined Steadman's bilateral CTS arose out of and in the course of her employment, not from causes outside her employment, and that it was characteristic of the employment and caused by conditions peculiar to such repetitive activity.

The deputy commissioner awarded Steadman medical benefits pursuant to Code § 65.2-603 for as long as necessary for her work-related bilateral CTS. However, he held she failed to market her residual work capacity, and was not entitled to indemnity benefits.3 Liberty Fabrics timely requested

589 S.E.2d 468
a review of the deputy commissioner's decision by the full commission

In its February 7, 2003 opinion, a majority of the commission reversed the decision of the deputy commissioner. It found Steadman failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that her condition was compensable as an ordinary disease of life pursuant to Code § 65.2-401. The commission determined that there was "no question" she suffered from bilateral CTS. Additionally, it determined that there was sufficient evidence to prove that her condition arose out of and in the course of her employment, based on Dr. Philbrick's January 28, 2002 Attending Physician's Report.

However, the majority of the commission found the evidence insufficient to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Steadman's condition did not result from causes outside her employment. See Code § 65.2-401. The only evidence related to possible causes arising from outside the employment emerged during cross-examination of Steadman at the hearing before the deputy commissioner:

MS. CLEMENTS: All right. Isn't it true that you don't recall particularly what activities about your job you described to Dr. Filbrick [sic]?
MS. STEADMAN: I couldn't remember when I talked to him last.
MS. CLEMENTS: And isn't it true that at that time you didn't talk to Dr. Filbrick [sic] about any of your activities outside of work?
MS. STEADMAN: I'm not sure. I don't do any activities outside of work.
MS. CLEMENTS: My question to you is did you discuss that with Dr. Filbrick [sic] at the time?
MS. STEADMAN: I'm not sure.
MS. CLEMENTS: Okay. Isn't
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • Com. v. Bakke, Record No. 2351-04-4.
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • 27 Septiembre 2005
    ...Overhead Door Co. of Norfolk v. Lewis, 29 Va.App. 52, 62, 509 S.E.2d 535, 539-40 (1999) (same); Steadman v. Liberty Fabrics, Inc., 41 Va.App. 796, 806 n.3, 589 S.E.2d 465, 467 n.3 (2003) (noting failure of the party to appeal an issue decided adversely by the deputy commissioner and declini......
  • Hart v. Hart, Record No. 1724-11-1
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals of Virginia
    • 5 Junio 2012
    ...detailing their respective attorney's fees. Id. at 192. 19. We deny wife's request for costs incurred on appeal. See generally Petry, 41 Va. App. at 796 n.7, 589 S.E.2d at 465 n.7; O'Loughlin v. O'Loughlin, 23 Va. App. 690, 695, 479 S.E.2d 98, 100...
  • Berglund Chevrolet, Inc. v. Landrum, Record No. 2897-03-3.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals of Virginia
    • 7 Septiembre 2004
    ...scrupulously obey both in principle and in practice when reviewing questions of causation, see, e.g., Steadman v. Liberty Fabrics, Inc., 41 Va.App. 796, 803, 589 S.E.2d 465, 469 (2003); S.P. Terry Co. v. Rubinos, 38 Va.App. 624, 632, 567 S.E.2d 584, 588 (2002); Lee County Sch. Bd. v. Miller......
  • Petry v. Petry, Record No. 0076-03-3.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals of Virginia
    • 16 Diciembre 2003
    ...that the chancellor confused what was in wife's best interests with what was in her children's best interests under the so-called 589 S.E.2d 465 "unity of interest" approach expressly rejected in Cloutier, 35 Va.App. at 430, 545 S.E.2d at 583, and implicitly rejected in Sullivan, 38 Va.App.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • Com. v. Bakke, Record No. 2351-04-4.
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • 27 Septiembre 2005
    ...Overhead Door Co. of Norfolk v. Lewis, 29 Va.App. 52, 62, 509 S.E.2d 535, 539-40 (1999) (same); Steadman v. Liberty Fabrics, Inc., 41 Va.App. 796, 806 n.3, 589 S.E.2d 465, 467 n.3 (2003) (noting failure of the party to appeal an issue decided adversely by the deputy commissioner and declini......
  • Hart v. Hart, Record No. 1724-11-1
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals of Virginia
    • 5 Junio 2012
    ...detailing their respective attorney's fees. Id. at 192. 19. We deny wife's request for costs incurred on appeal. See generally Petry, 41 Va. App. at 796 n.7, 589 S.E.2d at 465 n.7; O'Loughlin v. O'Loughlin, 23 Va. App. 690, 695, 479 S.E.2d 98, 100...
  • Berglund Chevrolet, Inc. v. Landrum, Record No. 2897-03-3.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals of Virginia
    • 7 Septiembre 2004
    ...scrupulously obey both in principle and in practice when reviewing questions of causation, see, e.g., Steadman v. Liberty Fabrics, Inc., 41 Va.App. 796, 803, 589 S.E.2d 465, 469 (2003); S.P. Terry Co. v. Rubinos, 38 Va.App. 624, 632, 567 S.E.2d 584, 588 (2002); Lee County Sch. Bd. v. Miller......
  • Petry v. Petry, Record No. 0076-03-3.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals of Virginia
    • 16 Diciembre 2003
    ...that the chancellor confused what was in wife's best interests with what was in her children's best interests under the so-called 589 S.E.2d 465 "unity of interest" approach expressly rejected in Cloutier, 35 Va.App. at 430, 545 S.E.2d at 583, and implicitly rejected in Sullivan, 38 Va.App.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT