COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Benton and Overton 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

NORFOLK SHIPBUILDING & 

 DRYDOCK CORPORATION 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1257-96-1 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON 

 NOVEMBER 26, 1996 

ARTHUR J. ROBINSON 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 Gerard E. W. Voyer (Donna White Kearney; 

Taylor & Walker, P.C., on brief), for 

appellant. 

 John H. Klein (Matthew H. Kraft; Rutter & 

Montagna, L.L.P., on brief), for appellee. 

 Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corporation, the employer, 

appeals from an award of benefits to Arthur J. Robinson for an 

injury by accident he sustained during his employment. We find 

that credible evidence supports the findings of the commission 

and affirm the commission. 

 The parties are fully conversant with the record to this 

case, and a recitation of the facts is unnecessary to this 

memorandum opinion. 

 Guided by well-established principles, we construe the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing 

below. Crisp v. Brown's Tysons Corner Dodge, Inc., 1 Va. App. 

503, 504, 339 S.E.2d 916, 916 (1986). "If there is evidence, or 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

reasonable inferences can be drawn from the evidence, to support 

the Commission's findings, they will not be disturbed on review, 

even though there is evidence in the record to support a contrary 

finding." Morris v. Badger Powhatan/Figgie Int'l, Inc., 3 Va. 

App. 276, 279, 348 S.E.2d 876, 877 (1986); see Code § 65.2-706. 

"In determining whether credible evidence exists," this Court 

will not "retry the facts, reweigh the preponderance of the 

evidence, or make its own determination of the credibility of the 

witnesses." Wagner Enters., Inc. v. Brooks, 12 Va. App. 890, 

894, 407 S.E.2d 32, 35 (1991) (citation omitted). "[A] 

determination of causation is a factual finding." Ingersoll-Rand 

Co. v. Musick, 7 Va. App. 684, 688, 376 S.E.2d 814, 817 (1989). 

 The commission found, from the testimony of Robinson and 

corroborating medical records, that Robinson injured his knee 

during the execution of his job-related duty. The commission 

further found that Robinson continues to be partially disabled. 

Finally, the commission found that Robinson had adequately 

marketed his residual capacity. Because the record contains 

credible evidence to support these conclusions, we affirm the 

award of the commission. 

 The commission also held that Robinson was not discharged 

for just cause. Not every discharge to which the employer can 

assign a reason is a "justified" discharge, and the commission 

errs if it does not consider the nature of the conduct leading to 

the discharge. Eppling v. Schultz Dining Programs, 18 Va. App. 
- 3 - 

125, 128-29, 442 S.E.2d 219, 221-22 (1994). The reasons given by 

employer in this case at best show a misunderstanding, at worst a 

laziness, resulting in slight inconvenience to the employer. 

They do not demonstrate "the type of willful misconduct or 

misbehavior that, upon termination, justifies a forfeiture of 

workers' compensation benefits." Id. at 130, 442 S.E.2d at 222. 

 Accordingly, the commission's decision is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.