COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Willis, Humphreys and Senior Judge Overton 

Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia 

KENNETH LEE CARROLL 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 2704-00-1 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. 

 JUNE 5, 2001 

ROLAND VAULTS, LTD. AND 

 TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 Steven M. Oser for appellant. 

 Warren H. Britt (Warren H. Britt, P.C., on 

brief), for appellees. 

 On appeal, Kenneth Lee Carroll contends that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission erred in holding that he failed to prove 

that he sustained an injury by accident arising out of his 

employment. Finding no error, we affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND

 On June 21, 1999, Carroll was employed by State 

Manufacturing Company as a truck driver. His duties required 

him to deliver burial vaults to a cemetery in Norfolk. He had 

been to this cemetery several times previously. 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

 After making his delivery, Carroll stopped to use the 

restroom at the cemetery office. While walking down the steps 

leaving the restroom, he slipped and fell, injuring his back. 

 Carroll filed a claim for benefits. At the hearing, he 

introduced photographs of the steps and stated that they were 

painted with "latex house paint." The photographs showed that 

the steps were of uneven size. Carroll testified that, on the 

day of the accident, he was not intoxicated and he had no 

existing leg or back condition that may have caused the 

accident. He did not testify that the slightly varied height or 

width of the steps caused him to fall. He admitted that he did 

not know whether the design of the steps violated a building 

code. 

 The deputy commissioner held that Carroll "failed to prove 

that some unusual condition was present which caused[,] or 

contributed to cause[,] the accident." He concluded that 

Carroll's fall and injury had not been proven to arise out of 

his employment and denied benefits. The full commission 

affirmed. 

II. ANALYSIS

 On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the party prevailing below. See R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. 

Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). A 

finding by the commission that an injury did or did not arise 
- 3 - 

out of and in the course of employment is a mixed finding of law 

and fact and is properly reviewable on appeal. See City of 

Richmond v. Braxton, 230 Va. 161, 163-64, 335 S.E.2d 259, 261 

(1985). 

 In order to prove that an injury "arose out of" his 

employment, a claimant must prove "a causal connection between 

the conditions under which the work is required to be performed 

and the resulting injury." Richmond Mem'l Hosp. v. Crane, 222 

Va. 283, 285, 278 S.E.2d 877, 878 (1981). "An accident arises 

out of the employment when there is a causal connection between 

the claimant's injury and the conditions under which the 

employer requires the work to be performed." United Parcel 

Service v. Fetterman, 230 Va. 257, 258, 336 S.E.2d 892, 893 

(1985) (citation omitted). Furthermore, "the arising out of 

test excludes 'an injury which comes from a hazard to which the 

employee would have been equally exposed apart from the 

employment. The causative danger must be peculiar to the work, 

incidental to the character of the business, and not independent 

of the master-servant relationship.'" County of Chesterfield v. 

Johnson, 237 Va. 180, 183-84, 376 S.E.2d 73, 75 (1989) (quoting 

Fetterman, 230 Va. at 258-59, 336 S.E.2d at 893). Thus, a 

condition of the workplace must cause or contribute to the fall, 

and the fall must cause the injury. Id. at 184, 376 S.E.2d at 
- 4 - 

75. There must be a "critical link between the conditions of 

the workplace and the injury." Id. at 186, 376 S.E.2d at 76. 

 Carroll presented no evidence that a condition peculiar to 

his employment caused him to slip and fall. He simply testified 

that he slipped and fell. Although his application for benefits 

alleged various defects in the steps, he neither testified about 

these conditions nor presented evidence that any such condition 

caused him to fall. He did not testify to any defect in the 

steps, except to say that he perceived them to be "unsafe." He 

made no causal connection between the slight height or width 

discrepancy of the steps and his fall. He did not assert that a 

foreign substance on the steps caused him to slip. The bare 

fact that the steps were painted with "latex house paint" did 

not prove that they were slippery. 

 We affirm the commission's decision. 

 Affirmed.