COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Koontz, Bray and Senior Judge Hodges 

JAIME ALFONSO GARCIA 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2602-94-4 PER CURIAM 

 JUNE 27, 1995 

BARLOWS, INC. 

AND 

CINCINNATI CASUALTY COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' 

COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Arturo Hernandez, on brief), for appellant. 

 (William E. Glover; Glover & Dahnk, on brief), for 

appellees. 

 Jaime Alfonso Garcia contends that the Workers' Compensation 

Commission erred in finding that he failed to prove that he 

suffered head, neck, leg, and back injuries as a result of his 

compensable December 8, 1992 injury by accident. 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. Rule 5A:27. 

 On appellate review, 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 Garcia's evidence 

sustained his burden of proof, the commission's findings are 

binding and conclusive upon us. Tomko v. Michael's Plastering 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1970). 

 Garcia testified that, while working for the employer on 

December 8, 1992, he fell approximately seven to ten feet from a 

forklift to the ground. He landed on his feet and hip. Before 

he fell, a conveyor belt hit his head and his left hand got 

caught in a chain. Garcia sustained a crush injury to his left 

hand. The employer accepted the left hand injury as compensable 

and an award was entered by the commission. On June 7, 1993, 

Garcia filed an application alleging additional injuries to his 

head, neck, legs, and back as a result of the December 8, 1992 

industrial accident. 

 In denying Garcia's application on the basis that he failed 

to prove that he sustained these additional injuries as a result 

of the December 8, 1992 accident, the commission found as 

follows: 

 We find the Deputy Commissioner's decision is 

amply supported by the record. There is no 

mention of any head, back, neck, or leg pain 

in the medical records until three weeks 

after the accident. The claimant asserted at 

the hearing that he tried to explain his 

injuries at the hospital on December 8, 1992, 

but he could not communicate in English. He 

initially denied the existence of an 

interpreter at the hospital, then stated he 

did not remember. However, the hospital 

records contain more than one reference to an 

interpreter. 

 We note that in reaching her decision, 

the Deputy Commissioner considered the 

demeanor of the claimant and determined that 

his testimony was not credible. The Deputy 

Commissioner observed the witnesses and 

therefore was in the best position to judge 

credibility. We do not find evidence in this 

record which would persuade us to alter the 
 3 

Deputy Commissioner's decision. 

 The deputy commissioner determined that Garcia's testimony 

concerning additional injury claims was not credible. This 

determination was based upon the deputy commissioner's finding 

that the hospital medical records and Dr. Shlomo Widder's reports 

of December 8, 1992 did not contain any evidence that Garcia 

complained of head, neck, leg, or back pain, nor did he make such 

complaints to the home health nurses who cared for him from 

January 14, 1993 through January 31, 1993. These findings are 

supported by the record. 

 The deputy commissioner was entitled to reject Garcia's 

contention that his inability to speak English resulted in the 

lack of documentation of his additional injury claims. The 

medical records indicated that Garcia's injuries were discussed 

through an interpreter at the hospital. In addition, Garcia 

admitted that some of the home health nurses spoke Spanish. 

 The full commission relied upon the deputy commissioner's 

credibility determination in reaching its decision. It is well 

settled that credibility determinations are within the fact 

finder's exclusive purview. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. 

Pierce, 5 Va. App. 374, 381, 363 S.E.2d 433, 437 (1987). Based 

on this record, the commission was entitled to conclude that 

Garcia's testimony was not credible.1

 Accordingly, we cannot 

 

 1Contrary to Garcia's contention, the commission did not 

find that he failed to prove that he fell on December 8, 1992. 

Rather, the commission found that he failed to prove that he 

sustained any injuries, other than to his left hand, as a result 
 4 

find as a matter of law that Garcia carried his burden of proving 

that he sustained head, neck, leg, and back injuries as a result 

of the December 8, 1992 compensable industrial accident. 

 For the reasons stated, we affirm the commission's decision. 

 Affirmed.

 

of the fall.