COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Benton and Overton 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

BRISTOL COMPRESSORS AND 

 NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE 

 COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 BY JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER 

v. Record No. 2303-94-3 DECEMBER 19, 1995 

 

HARRY E. WATERS 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 Michael F. Blair (Penn, Stuart, Eskridge & Jones, 

 on brief), for appellants. 

 Stephen A. Vickers (Vickers & Moffatt, on brief), 

 for appellee. 

 In this appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation 

Commission (commission), Bristol Compressors (employer) contends 

that the commission erroneously found that Harry Waters 

(claimant) proved a compensable injury by accident arising out of 

and in the course of his employment. Therefore, employer 

contends that the commission wrongfully entered an award of 

benefits for the injury. Employer argues that the record does 

not contain sufficient credible evidence to support the award. 

 In claimant's "CLAIM FOR BENEFITS" form1

 and request for 

rehearing, he described the accident as having occurred when his 

 

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

designated for publication. 

 1This application was forwarded to the commission by letter 

dated February 10, 1994 and stated that the accident had occurred 

on November 1, 1993. 
- 2 - 

"foot slipped on a greasy skid and caused the claimant to fall." 

 Following a hearing on May 4, 1994, the deputy commissioner 

found that claimant did not prove a compensable injury by 

accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. 

 On appeal from that decision, the full commission found 

". . . that the injury resulted from contaminants on the pallet 

or because of the unusually low height of the step, or a 

combination of the two factors, and is compensable."2

 On appeal, we state the facts in the light most favorable to 

claimant as the prevailing party below. Crisp v. Brown's Tysons 

Corner Dodge, Inc., 1 Va. App. 503, 339 S.E.2d 916 (1986). At 

approximately 5:30 a.m. on November 1, 1993, while working his 

usual 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. work shift, claimant sustained a 

broken ankle. Claimant filed a claim for workers' compensation 

benefits using a commission form. He answered the "How Occurred" 

question by saying his "[f]oot slipped on a greasy skid and 

caused [him] to fall." At the hearing, and in a pretrial 

interview, claimant denied seeing oil on the floor or pallet; 

however, he consistently testified that while he did not see oil, 

it always was there due to leaking machinery. He said the skid, 

alternately referred to as a pallet, was greasy, and he always 

had oil on his boots. When asked what was responsible for his 

injury, claimant responded, "The skid. If there were not skids 

 

 2Claimant testified that the height of the pallet was six to 

eight inches. 
- 3 - 

in front of the machines and you had to back off of them or if 

there was a safer way of coming down off of them, I wouldn't have 

broke [sic] my leg. No way." 

 Claimant further testified that immediately prior to his 

fall, his machine was "down." In such cases, his job required 

that he offer to relieve a co-worker, and claimant ascended to 

make that offer. When the co-worker declined his offer, due to 

the existing physical conditions, claimant was required to back 

down off of the greasy six to eight inch pallet to return to his 

work station. 

 Employer argues that there is no evidence in this record to 

support the commission's finding that the injury occurred in the 

manner stated by the commission. We disagree. 

 There is evidence that the pallet was greasy and that 

claimant backed off of it as he descended from his co-worker's 

station. Claimant stated that the cause of his fall and injury 

was the greasy skid in front of the machine that constantly 

leaked oil, compiled with the physical structure that required 

him to back off of the skid. While claimant did not say that he 

slipped on grease or oil, he did say his fall was caused by the 

"height of the skid" when he backed off, ". . . the height 

ratio." 

 We are of opinion that the foregoing evidence is sufficient 

to support the commission's finding that claimant sustained an 

injury in the course of his employment and arising out of a risk 
- 4 - 

he was subject to at the place thereof. Accordingly, we affirm 

the award. 

 Affirmed.