COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

ZINAIDA R. SOYFER 

v. Record No. 1879-95-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL JANUARY 23, 1996 

AND 

PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURER'S ASSOCIATION 

INSURANCE COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' 

COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (David C. Jackson, on brief), for appellant. 

 (Jennifer G. Marwitz; Sands, Anderson, Marks & Miller, 

on brief), for appellees. 

 Zinaida R. Soyfer ("claimant") contends that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission erred in finding that she failed to prove 

a causal connection between her current condition (consisting of 

reflex sympathetic dystrophy ("RSD") of the right upper 

extremity, chronic right shoulder pain, and chronic right hand 

pain) and her compensable September 28, 1993 injury by accident. 

 Claimant also argues that the commission erred by not addressing 

the issues of whether Dr. I. M. Averbuch's treatment constituted 

emergency treatment and whether the failure of St. Mary's 

Hospital ("employer") to provide claimant a panel of physicians 

justified her seeking treatment from Dr. Averbuch. Upon 

reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily 

affirm the commission's decision. Rule 5A:27. 

 On appeal, 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 claimant's evidence 

sustained her burden of proving causation, the commission's 

findings are binding and conclusive on appeal. Tomko v. 

Michael's Plastering Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 833, 835 

(1970). 

 The commission held that claimant's evidence did not show 

that her September 28, 1993 compensable right shoulder injury 

caused her RSD and disability, if any, beginning September 14, 

1994. In so ruling, the commission found that Dr. Averbuch, who 

first diagnosed claimant as suffering from RSD in September 1994, 

did not opine whether this condition was caused by claimant's 

compensable right shoulder injury or her non-compensable right 

carpal tunnel syndrome.1

 This finding is supported by the 

medical records and will not be disturbed on appeal. 

 Moreover, Dr. Whipple's medical records do not provide any 

evidence of a causal connection between claimant's current 

condition and her compensable right shoulder injury. On March 

 

 1On February 3, 1994, Dr. Terry Whipple, claimant's initial 

treating physician, opined that he could not relate her right 

hand symptoms to her compensable right shoulder injury or the 

repetitive tasks she performed at work. No evidence contradicted 

this opinion. 
 3 

24, 1994, Dr. Whipple noted that claimant suffered from "right 

upper extremity pain, unknown etiology." He also noted that the 

report of Hand Management Specialists showed no evidence of 

reflex sympathetic dystrophy. On May 31, 1994, Dr. Whipple noted 

that claimant's shoulder was no longer uncomfortable and he 

released her to return to work, without restrictions, as of 

June 1, 1994. 

 Based upon this record, we cannot say as a matter of law 

that claimant met her burden of proving that her current 

condition and resulting disability, if any, are related to her 

compensable right shoulder injury. Because our ruling on the 

causation issue disposes of this appeal, we need not address the 

remaining two questions presented by claimant. 

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

 Affirmed.