COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

RENE L. PUTNAM 

v. Record No. 2778-95-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

SAFEWAY, INC. MAY 21, 1996 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (James F. Green; Ashcraft & Gerel, on 

brief), for appellant. 

 (Kevin J. O'Connell; O'Connell & O'Connell, 

on brief), for appellee. 

 Rene L. Putnam ("claimant") contends that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission erred in finding that she failed to prove 

that her employment caused her bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. 

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:27.1

 A claimant must prove the existence of an occupational 

disease by a preponderance of the evidence. Virginia Dep't of 

State Police v. Talbert, 1 Va. App. 250, 253, 337 S.E.2d 307, 308 

(1985). "Whether a disease is causally related to the employment 

 

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

designated for publication. 

 1We recognize that, in light of the Supreme Court's decision 

in Steinrich Group v. Jemmott, ___ Va. ___, 467 S.E.2d 795 

(1996), the commission erred in finding that claimant's carpal 

tunnel syndrome constituted a "disease" within the meaning of an 

occupational disease under the Workers' Compensation Act. 

However, because employer did not appeal this finding, it is 

binding and conclusive upon this Court. 
 2 

and not causally related to other factors . . . is a finding of 

fact." Island Creek Coal Co. v. Breeding, 6 Va. App. 1, 12, 365 

S.E.2d 782, 788 (1988). Unless we can say as a matter of law 

that claimant's evidence sustained her burden of proof, the 

commission's findings are binding and conclusive upon us. Tomko 

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

835 (1970). 

 An occupational disease is one "arising out of and in the 

course of employment." Code § 65.2-400(A). "A disease shall be 

deemed to arise out of the employment" when the evidence 

establishes six elements. Code § 65.2-400(B). Elements (1) and 

(6) require evidence showing "[a] direct causal connection 

between the conditions under which work is performed and the 

occupational disease" and that the disease "had its origin in a 

risk connected with the employment and flowed from that source as 

a natural consequence . . . ." Code § 65.2-400(B)(1) and (B)(6). 

 The commission found that claimant failed to establish a 

compensable occupational disease under the requirements of Code 

§ 65.2-400. 

 In denying claimant's application, the commission found as 

follows: 

 The most positive evidence regarding 

causation presented by the claimant in this 

case is Dr. [Hugo A.] Davalos' interrogatory 

response, through which he agrees only that 

the carpal tunnel syndrome is "directly 

related to the nature of the claimant's 

employment." There is no evidence in this 

case that the carpal tunnel syndrome was 

proximately caused by that work. 
 3 

 The commission, in its role as fact finder, was entitled to 

give little weight to Dr. Davalos' opinion where he failed to 

state with any degree of reasonable medical certainty that 

claimant's employment caused her carpal tunnel syndrome. As the 

commission correctly noted, the fact that claimant's carpal 

tunnel syndrome may have been related to the nature of her work 

is not sufficient to show that it had its origin in a risk 

connected to her employment. The record also showed that Dr. 

Royfe did not render an opinion on causation and Dr. J. Mark 

Evans opined that claimant's carpal tunnel syndrome was not 

caused by her employment. 

 Based upon the absence of any persuasive medical opinion 

that claimant's work caused her carpal tunnel syndrome, claimant 

did not prove as a matter of law a compensable occupational 

disease pursuant to the requirements of Code § 65.2-400. Thus, 

the commission did not err in denying her application based upon 

a finding that she did not prove that her condition was caused by 

her employment or that it had its origin in a work-connected 

risk. 

 Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision. 

 Affirmed.