COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Bumgardner 

JAMES W. PEACH, JR. 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1706-97-2 PER CURIAM 

 DECEMBER 23, 1997 

TALLEY SIGN COMPANY 

AND 

TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE COMPANY 

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Matthew H. Kraft; Rutter & Montagna, on 

brief), for appellant. 

 (Jennifer G. Marwitz; Law Offices of Roya 

Palmer, on brief), for appellees. 

 James W. Peach, Jr. (claimant) contends that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission erred in denying his claim for an award 

of permanent partial disability benefits on the ground that he 

failed to prove that his permanent vision loss was causally 

related to his compensable January 25, 1994 injury by accident. 

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. 

 On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the prevailing party below. See 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 his burden of proving a causal connection between his 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

vision loss and his compensable injury by accident, the 

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

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

833, 835 (1970). 

 In denying claimant's application, the commission found as 

follows: 

 In his de bene esse deposition of 

April 24, 1996, Dr. [John W.] Dickerson 

stated that he believed the claimant suffered 

a trauma to the left eye, causing blood 

vessels that service the optic nerves to 

hemorrhage, causing the vision loss. 

However, he testified that he would have 

expected to find observable residua or 

pathology within, or on parts of the 

claimant's cornea or optic nerve, and he 

found none. When asked about whether he 

thought damage between the optic nerve and 

the retina caused the vision loss, Dr. 

Dickerson explained, "I don't know for sure 

what happened to Mr. Peach. That's what 

frustrates me." 

* * * * * * * 

 In considering Dr. Dickerson's opinions 

as a whole, it is apparent that he assumes 

the accident caused the loss of visual 

acuity, only because there is little else to 

explain it. See, e.g., April 5, 1995 letter 

("I can only assume that this was caused by 

his injury"). In his deposition, he offered 

explanations as to what may have caused the 

loss of vision, but saw no residual effects 

normally expected to be found in such a case. 

The commission also noted that Drs. S. Talegaonkar and W. Richard 

Jeter, who treated claimant during 1994, did not believe at that 

time that claimant's eye problems were related to his compensable 

injury. 
 3 

 The commission's factual findings are supported by the 

record. In light of the opinions of Drs. Talegaonkar and Jeter 

and the speculative nature of Dr. Dickerson's opinions, the 

commission, as fact finder, was entitled to conclude that 

"[g]iven the evidence as a whole, we find that the claimant has 

failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his 

vision loss is causally related to the January 25, 1994 

accident." "Medical evidence is not necessarily conclusive but 

is subject to the commission's consideration and weighing." 

Hungerford Mechanical Corp. v. Hobson, 11 Va. App. 675, 677, 401 

S.E.2d 213, 215 (1991). 

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

that claimant's evidence sustained his burden of proof. 

Accordingly, the commission's findings are binding and conclusive 

upon us on appeal. 

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

 Affirmed.