COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

LINDA A. BROWN 

v. Record No. 2400-96-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

OAK HILL HEALTH CARE CENTER MARCH 4, 1997 

AND 

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Linda A. Brown, pro se, on brief). 

 (Thomas G. Bell, Jr.; Timberlake, Smith, 

Thomas & Moses, on brief), for appellees. 

 Linda A. Brown (claimant) contends that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission (commission) erred in finding that she 

failed to prove she sustained an injury by accident arising out 

of and in the course of her employment on April 25, 1995. 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. R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. 

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

order to carry [her] burden of proving an 'injury by accident,' a 

claimant must prove the cause of [her] injury was an identifiable 

incident or sudden precipitating event and that it resulted in an 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

obvious sudden mechanical or structural change in the body." 

Morris v. Morris, 238 Va. 578, 589, 385 S.E.2d 858, 865 (1989) 

(citations omitted). Unless we can say as a matter of law that 

claimant's evidence sustained her burden of proof, the 

commission's finding is binding and conclusive upon us. Tomko v. 

Michael's Plastering Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 833, 835 

(1970). 

 Claimant testified that, on April 25, 1995, while working as 

a nurse's aide for employer, she injured her left ankle and back 

while moving a patient from her bed to a reclining chair. 

Claimant stated that the patient's bed had no rollers and that 

she injured her ankle when she tried to move the bed with her 

leg. Claimant could not recall having received specific training 

in the use of the bed. Claimant also stated that, while 

attempting to wash the patient thereafter, she felt a sting on 

the right side of her lower back. 

 In rejecting claimant's testimony and in ruling that 

claimant's "injuries were the result of non-compensable, 

cumulative or repetitive trauma resulting from repeated 

activities involving the lifting and repositioning of the patient 

and others during the course of her shift," the commission found 

as follows: 

 Several aspects of the employee's 

testimony were contradicted by that offered 

by her supervisor, Ms. Evers. Ms. Evers 

testified that because most of the beds in 

the facility had wheels, she trained the 

nursing aides on April 6, 1995, on the proper 

use of those beds. After receiving the 
 3 

telephone call from the employee, Ms. Evers 

checked [the patient's] bed and found that it 

had four wheels, as did the bed used in 

training. It was not until the next morning 

that the employee first reported the wrist 

injury. An Attending Physician's Report was 

submitted on April 26, 1995. The employee 

completed block 10, which contains the 

patient's account of how the injury or 

accident occurred. This information, 

completed by the employee in her own hand, 

states that she was "working with resident 

without rollers (moving bed back & forth) on 

bed - over extended period - possible lifting 

of another (lifting this person at least 5 

times)." 

 It is well settled that credibility determinations are 

within the fact finder's exclusive purview. Goodyear Tire & 

Rubber Co. v. Pierce, 5 Va. App. 374, 381, 363 S.E.2d 433, 437 

(1987). Based upon the inconsistencies between claimant's 

testimony, Evers' testimony, and claimant's account of how the 

injury occurred as written by her on the Attending Physician's 

Report, the commission was entitled to conclude that the medical 

records, including the claimant's recorded version of events, 

were more persuasive than claimant's testimony. Accordingly, we 

cannot find as a matter of law that claimant's evidence sustained 

her burden of proof. 

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

 Affirmed.