COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Frank 

DANVILLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER 

AND 

VIRGINIA INSURANCE RECIPROCAL 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1294-99-3 PER CURIAM 

 OCTOBER 26, 1999 

CLARE LEA S. PEARCE 

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Martha White Medley; Daniel, Vaughan, 

 Medley & Smitherman, P.C., on brief), for 

appellants. 

 No brief for appellee. 

 Danville Regional Medical Center and its insurer 

(hereinafter referred to as "employer") contend that the 

Workers' Compensation Commission (commission) erred in finding 

that Clare Lea S. Pearce (claimant) proved (1) a reasonable 

excuse for failing to give timely notice of her accident as 

required by Code § 65.2-600; and (2) that she sustained an 

injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her 

employment on May 8, 1998. Upon reviewing the record and the 

briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code 

§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's 

decision. See Rule 5A:27. 

I. 

 Code § 65.2-600 requires an employee to give written notice 

of an injury by accident within thirty days of the accident 

"unless reasonable excuse is made to the satisfaction of the 

Commission for not giving such notice and the Commission is 

satisfied that the employer has not been prejudiced thereby." 

In applying the statute, the principles are well established 

that "[t]he burden of showing a reasonable excuse for . . . 

delay in giving notice is upon the [employee, and, that] . . . 

the burden is upon the employer to show that [the employer] has 

been prejudiced by the delay." Maryland Cas. Co. v. Robinson, 

149 Va. 307, 311, 141 S.E. 225, 226 (1928); see also Lucas v. 

Research Analysis Corp., 209 Va. 583, 586, 166 S.E.2d 294, 296 

(1969); Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Coffey, 13 Va. App. 446, 448, 

412 S.E.2d 209, 211 (1991). 

 The commission held that claimant offered a reasonable 

excuse for her failure to provide written notice in accordance 

with Code § 65.2-600. In its opinion, the commission made the 

following findings: 

The claimant, a registered nurse, had a 

reasonable belief that the problem would 

resolve itself if she limited her lifting, 

rested, used heat, and took medication. 

During this period, the claimant was able to 

continue working, but did not lift patients. 
- 3 - 

However, once she began to experience a 

different type of pain and numbness that 

went into her right femur, she immediately 

reported the accident in order to seek 

medical treatment. We note that Dr. [Jacob] 

Moll treated the claimant in a similar 

manner as she treated herself. He found her 

able to continue to perform her regular 

duties, with the only difference being that 

he provided the claimant with physical 

therapy. . . . We note that the claimant 

did report the incident within 36 days upon 

immediately noting the need for medical 

attention. We find that there has been no 

prejudice to the employer in that there is 

no evidence that different treatment would 

have been prescribed than what the claimant 

was currently doing on her own initiative. 

We also find there is no evidence that this 

in any way impeded the employer's ability to 

investigate the claim. The failure to 

timely report did not affect the claimant's 

ability to work or cause her to experience 

any disability from work.1

 In reviewing decisions of the commission with respect to 

reasonable excuse under Code § 65.2-600 (formerly Code 

§ 65.1-85), the Supreme Court has stated that the principal 

issue is whether evidence is offered to the satisfaction of the 

commission. See Lucas, 209 Va. at 586, 166 S.E.2d at 296. 

 The commission found that claimant's excuse was reasonable. 

Credible evidence, including claimant's testimony and the 

medical records, support that finding. Claimant's testimony and 

the medical records established that she did not immediately 

 1

 Employer did not challenge the commission's finding that 

it was not prejudiced by claimant's untimely notice. 

Accordingly, that finding is binding on appeal. 
- 4 - 

report the accident because she thought her injury was not 

severe enough to warrant seeking medical treatment and that it 

would resolve on its own through self-administered treatment. 

Accordingly, we may not disturb the commission's decision. See

James v. Capitol Steet Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382 

S.E.2d 487, 488 (1989). 

II. 

 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). "In 

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

claimant must prove that the cause of [the] injury was an 

identifiable incident or sudden precipitating event and that it 

resulted in an obvious sudden mechanical or structural change in 

the body." Morris v. Morris, 238 Va. 578, 589, 385 S.E.2d 858, 

865 (1989). 

 Claimant's uncontroverted testimony was that on May 8, 1998, 

at approximately 1:00 p.m., she was working for employer as a 

radiology nurse. At that time, she experienced "discomfort" in 

her lower right back in the sacroiliac area, as she and a 

co-worker moved a patient, who weighed in excess of 200 pounds. 

The pain was not severe enough to take claimant to her knees or to 

cause her to cry out. However, she had never felt this type of 

pain before. 
- 5 - 

 Claimant's testimony regarding the accident was corroborated 

by her incident report and the history she gave to Dr. Moll on 

June 12, 1998. On that date, claimant told Dr. Moll that she 

experienced "acute severe pain in the R lower back when lifting a 

[patient] 4 wks ago." 

 Claimant's testimony, along with the incident report and Dr. 

Moll's medical history, constitute credible evidence to support 

the commission's finding that claimant proved she sustained an 

identifiable incident that resulted in a sudden mechanical or 

structural change in her body on May 8, 1998. Accordingly, we may 

not disturb the commission's finding on appeal. See James, 8 Va. 

App. at 515, 382 S.E.2d at 488. 

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

 Affirmed.