COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Willis, Fitzpatrick and Overton 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY 

 OPINION BY 

v. Record No. 1876-95-3 JUDGE JOHANNA L. FITZPATRICK 

 MAY 21, 1996 

TOMMY B. PARROTT 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 Ramesh Murthy (Penn, Stuart, Eskridge & 

Jones, on briefs), for appellant. 

 Gerald F. Sharp (Browning, Lamie & Sharp, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 In this workers' compensation case, Clinchfield Coal Company 

(employer) appeals the commission's decision awarding benefits to 

Tommy B. Parrott (claimant). Employer argues that the commission 

erred in finding that claimant was unable to return to his preinjury employment. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the 

commission. 

 On January 31, 1994, while working for employer, claimant 

injured his back when he slipped on icy steps. Claimant's 

primary work for employer was as a dryer operator. He performed 

additional mechanical work as requested on an infrequent basis. 

This usually occurred when he was scheduled to work on a Saturday 

or when the dryer was not operating. Because claimant worked few 

Saturdays and the plant was running at full production, claimant 

worked as a dryer operator ninety percent of the time and 

performed mechanical work ten percent of the time. Employer 
 2 

 

provided equipment such as chain falls and come-alongs1

 to assist 

employees performing mechanical work, but did not require its 

employees to use this equipment. Employer was aware that 

claimant and other mechanics normally performed their mechanical 

duties by manually lifting heavy objects in excess of forty 

pounds. Often, because of tightness of quarters, the mechanics 

were unable to use the equipment provided by employer to assist 

with the lifting and moving. 

 After his accident, claimant continued to work for employer 

until April 13, 1994, when he was terminated for reasons 

unrelated to his industrial accident. Employer recalled claimant 

to work for three days in June 1994, but the mechanical work that 

claimant performed during that period aggravated his back 

condition. On June 13, 1994, claimant's treating physician, Dr. 

Taylor D. Holliday, authorized his removal from the workplace. 

On July 18, 1994, claimant's orthopedic doctor, Dr. Neal A. 

Jewell, placed lifting restrictions on claimant--"40 pounds 

occasionally and 10 pounds frequently"--and released claimant to 

return to work effective July 25, 1994. 

 1A chain fall is similar to a differential pulley, which 

consists of "a fixed upper double block with pulleys of different 

diameters fixed together on the same axis, a movable single lower 

pulley that carries the load, and an endless cable or chain that 

passes around all the pulleys and hangs in a loop for operating 

the mechanism which is used to achieve a very high mechanical 

advantage." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 630 

(1986). A come-along is "a gripping device (as for pulling in or 

stretching wire) consisting of two jaws so attached to a ring that 

they are closed by pulling the ring." Webster's Dictionary, 

supra, at 453. 
 3 

 The commission found that "the evidence in this case reveals 

that the mechanical duties performed by claimant were incidental 

to his employment with [employer] and that as a matter of course 

he and others would manually lift in excess of forty pounds to 

accomplish these duties." Additionally, the commission 

determined that the fact "[t]hat these duties were infrequently 

performed does not diminish the fact that they were expected to 

be performed and that they were actually performed by manually 

lifting in excess of the claimant's work restrictions." 

 Employer argues that the commission erred in finding that 

claimant was unable to return to his pre-injury employment and 

asserts that claimant was able to perform the essential functions 

of his pre-injury employment by using the equipment provided by 

employer. 

 On appeal, "we review the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the prevailing party." R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. 

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

"Factual findings of the . . . [c]ommission will be upheld on 

appeal if supported by credible evidence." James v. Capitol 

Steel Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 488 

(1989). 

 In a workers' compensation case, "[t]he threshold test of 

compensability is whether the employee is 'able fully to perform 

the duties of his preinjury employment.'" Celanese Fibers Co. v. 

Johnson, 229 Va. 117, 120, 326 S.E.2d 687, 690 (1985) (emphasis 
 4 

added) (quoting Sky Chefs, Inc. v. Rogers, 222 Va. 800, 805, 284 

S.E.2d 605, 607 (1981)). The commission has held that, "[i]n 

determining whether an injured employee can return to his or her 

pre-injury employment duties the Commission does not look at how 

the duties could ideally be performed, but rather, how the duties 

were actually performed." Hester v. Country Club of Virginia, 

Inc., VWC File No. 154-65-86 (May 10, 1994) (emphasis added). We 

agree with the commission and hold that the normal and customary 

manner in which the pre-injury work was performed governs the 

determination of whether a claimant is able to return to that 

employment. 

 In Hester, the claimant was an assistant manager at a 

country club. She injured her back while working for the country 

club, and her treating physician advised against heavy lifting. 

Slip op. at 1-3. As an assistant manager, the claimant's 

responsibilities included supervising the staff and helping them 

set up tables, move chairs, and carry heavy trays and boxes. She 

also unpacked and shelved boxes of liquor because staff members 

were not allowed in the liquor room. Slip op. at 3-4. Examining 

"how [the claimant's] duties were actually performed," the 

commission found that, although staff members assisted the 

claimant with heavy lifting, her "pre-injury job required her to 

achieve results and this required her to perform physical labor 

on occasion when the staffing was insufficient." Slip op. at 5. 

 Similarly, in the instant case, the evidence established 
 5 

that claimant's duties as a mechanic involved lifting in excess 

of the restrictions imposed by his doctor. Thus, claimant was 

unable to "fully perform" the duties of his pre-injury 

employment. Although employer provided equipment that might aid 

employees lifting heavy objects, claimant and other mechanics 

often performed their mechanical duties by manually lifting these 

objects rather than using employer's equipment. Employer was 

aware that the mechanics did not always use the equipment, but 

did not require its use. Additionally, due to the tightness of 

the quarters where the work was to be performed, the mechanics 

were often unable to use the equipment provided by employer. 

Under these circumstances, credible evidence supports the 

commission's finding that claimant was unable to return to his 

pre-injury employment. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the commission is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.