COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Frank 

OSCAR R. WHITE 

 

v. Record No. 2345-98-2 

C. J. COAKLEY COMPANY, INC. AND 

 HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

WILBERT E. WHITE MAY 4, 1999 

v. Record No. 2346-98-2 

C. J. COAKLEY COMPANY, INC. AND 

 HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY 

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

(Gary W. Kendall; Michie, Hamlett, Lowry, 

Rasmussen & Tweel, P.C., on brief), for 

appellants. 

(Benjamin J. Trichilo; Trichilo, Bancroft, 

McGavin, Horvath & Judkins, P.C., on brief), 

for appellees. 

 Oscar R. White and Wilbert E. White ("claimants") contend 

that the Workers’ Compensation Commission ("commission") erred in 

denying their claims for an award of benefits for asbestosis, an 

occupational disease, on the ground that they failed to prove that 

they were last injuriously exposed to asbestos at the St. 

Elizabeth’s Hospital jobsite during 1983 and 1984 while employed 

by C.J. Coakley Company, Inc. ("employer"). Upon reviewing the 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010, 

this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 -

record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal 

is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the 

commission’s decision. See 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 the claimants’ evidence 

sustained their burden of proof, 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 the claims, the commission found the testimony of 

employers’ witnesses more credible than the claimants’ testimony. 

In so ruling, the commission found as follows: 

Oscar White’s testimony is questionable. He 

said he could tell asbestos by sight and 

believed the products being installed at St. 

Elizabeth’s Hospital contained asbestos. 

The more credible evidence of [C.J.] Coakley 

established that asbestos was not used in 

plaster materials since the early 1970’s. 

 Wilbert White testified that he could 

identify asbestos because it made him cough. 

He presumably identified asbestos he and his 

brother worked with at St. Elizabeth’s 

Hospital that way. However, this testing is 

contradicted by his statements that the 

asbestos was not reported to the employer 

because he did not know it was asbestos at 

the time. 

 Coakley and Scafide, and even Wilbert 

White, testified that the seven buildings on 

which they worked through 1984 had already 

been gutted before work by the Coakley crews 

commenced. These building sites were 

visited several times in 1983 and 1984 by 
- 3 -

Scafide, who found no safety violations. 

Furthermore, neither Coakley or Scafide 

could testify that any asbestos had been 

removed from the first seven buildings, the 

only buildings on which the claimants 

worked. There is therefore no credible 

evidence that there was asbestos in the 

seven buildings worked on by Wilbert White 

and Oscar White. 

 Even if we were to accept the testimony 

of Oscar and Wilbert White that asbestos 

removal crews worked at opposite ends of the 

building where the claimants worked, 

although this flies in the face of standard 

asbestos removal procedures, this is 

insufficient to show exposure to asbestos 

materials in the areas where the claimants 

worked. 

 The commission’s factual findings are amply supported by 

the record. In its role as fact finder, the commission was 

entitled to accept the testimony of Coakley and Scafide and to 

reject the claimants’ testimony. It is well settled that 

credibility determinations are within the fact finder’s 

exclusive purview. See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Pierce, 5 

Va. App. 374, 381, 363 S.E.2d 433, 437 (1987). Based upon the 

testimony of Coakley and Scafide, which the commission was 

entitled to accept, we cannot say as a matter of law that 

claimants’ evidence sustained their burden of proof. 

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

Affirmed.