COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Benton and Coleman 

LISA L. CONAWAY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1420-98-1 PER CURIAM 

 NOVEMBER 24, 1998 

KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN AND 

 AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Robert E. Walsh; Rutter & Montagna, on 

brief), for appellant. 

 (William C. Walker; Donna White Kearney; 

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

appellees. 

 Lisa L. Conaway 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 March 13, 1997. 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. 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). "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 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

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). Unless we can say as a matter of law that Conaway's 

evidence sustained her 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). 

 The commission ruled that Conaway failed to prove that an 

identifiable incident or precipitating event caused her neck and 

back injuries. As the basis for its decision, the commission 

made the following findings: 

 Based upon all the evidence, the Deputy 

Commissioner concluded that Conaway had 

failed to prove a compensable injury by 

accident. We agree, and find no basis on 

which to reverse the credibility 

determination of the Deputy Commissioner. 

Although Conaway's Hearing testimony and the 

history recorded by Dr. [Lawrence] Morales 

would support a finding of a specific 

incident, that evidence is undermined by 

Conaway's more contemporaneous statements. 

In the recorded statement given two weeks 

after the alleged accident, Conaway failed to 

describe an identifiable incident which 

caused her injury, and confirmed that she did 

not begin to feel pain until after she had 

moved the 15 cases of chicken. She denied 

that there was a specific incident, and 

stated that her pain had a gradual onset. 

Dr. [Cathy H.] Traugh, the initial treating 

physician, failed to record the history of a 

specific incident. The first mention of a 

specific incident came after Conaway had been 

advised by the employer's representative that 

a gradually incurred injury might not be 

compensable. 

 As fact finder, the commission was entitled to reject 

Conaway's hearing testimony that a specific incident occurred. 
- 3 - 

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). In 

this instance, the issue of whether Conaway sustained an injury 

due to a specific identifiable incident occurring at work on 

March 13, 1997 was entirely dependent upon her credibility. The 

commission, in considering her testimony, the medical reports, 

and her March 27, 1997 recorded statement, found Conaway's 

evidence to be insufficient to establish her claim. In light of 

the lack of any history of a specific incident in the recorded 

statement or in Dr. Traugh's initial medical reports, we cannot 

say, as a matter of law, that Conaway's evidence sustained her 

burden of proof. 

 Conaway argues that the commission's decision does not 

comport with this Court's holdings in Dollar General Store v. 

Cridlin, 22 Va. App. 171, 468 S.E.2d 152 (1996), and R & R 

Constr. Corp. v. Hill, 25 Va. App. 376, 488 S.E.2d 663 (1997). 

We disagree. In Cridlin, unlike this case, the commission found 

that Cridlin's testimony was credible. Cridlin, 22 Va. App. at 

176-77, 468 S.E.2d at 154-55. Furthermore, in Hill, unlike this 

case, there was no evidence that Hill's back injury occurred 

gradually or over a period of time. Hill, 25 Va. App. at 379, 

488 S.E.2d at 665. 

 Conaway also argues that the commission's decision does not 

comport with its decisions in several other cases. However, we 
- 4 - 

find that those cases either turned upon the issue of 

credibility, as does this case, or are distinguishable from this 

case on their facts. 

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

 Affirmed.