COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis 

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, INC. 

AND 

EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0273-95-4 PER CURIAM 

 JUNE 27, 1995 

MARY ANN JENKINS 

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Cathleen P. Welsh; Wharton, Aldhizer & Weaver, on 

brief), for appellants. 

 (Nikolas E. Parthemos; Prosser, Parthemos & Bryant, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Automotive Industries, Inc. and its insurer contend that the 

Workers' Compensation Commission erred in finding that Mary Ann 

Jenkins proved that her right-sided carpal tunnel syndrome is a 

disease within the meaning of "disease" under the Workers' 

Compensation Act (the Act). 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. 

 The facts in this case are not in dispute. Jenkins worked 

for Automotive Industries, Inc. beginning in July 1986. She 

began to experience problems with her right hand in 1993 when she 

started using a spraypaint gun at work. Prior to using the 

spraypaint gun, Jenkins worked on the assembly line, putting 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

together automobile visors. In October 1993, she was assigned 

the job of cleaning armrests. This job involved paring off 

excess foam rubber with a small knife. All of these jobs 

involved repetitive activities requiring Jenkins to use her right 

hand. 

 On February 7, 1994, Dr. Janet M. Dougherty informed Jenkins 

that the numbness and pain in her hand was caused by right-sided 

carpal tunnel syndrome which was job-related. Dr. Dougherty 

referred Jenkins to Dr. Stephen H. Martenson, an orthopedic 

surgeon. Dr. Martenson agreed with Dr. Dougherty's diagnosis, 

and he also concluded that Jenkins' carpal tunnel syndrome was 

job-related. Based upon the medical evidence, the commission 

found that Jenkins proved that her carpal tunnel syndrome was an 

occupational disease caused by her employment. 

 In Merillat Indus., Inc. v. Parks, 246 Va. 429, 436 S.E.2d 

600 (1993), the Supreme Court held that the Act "requires that 

the condition for which compensation is sought as an occupational 

disease must first qualify as a disease." Id. at 432, 436 S.E.2d 

at 601. This Court defined "disease" as: 

 "any deviation from or interruption of the 

normal structure or function of any part, 

organ, or system (or combination thereof) of 

the body that is manifested by a 

characteristic set of symptoms and signs and 

whose etiology, pathology, and prognosis may 
 3 

be known or unknown." 

Piedmont Mfg. Co. v. East, 17 Va. App. 499, 503, 438 S.E.2d 769, 

772 (1993) (quoting Sloane-Dorland Ann. Medical-Legal Dictionary

209 (1976)). The commission has adopted a similar definition of 

disease. See Commonwealth, Dep't of State Police v. Haga, 18 Va. 

App. 162, 164, 442 S.E.2d 424, 425 (1994) (citing Fletcher v. TAD 

Technical Servs. Corp., VWC file 150-41-13 (March 12, 1992)). 

"[T]he word 'disease' has a well-established meaning, and . . . 

no significant disparity exists among the definitions of that 

term promulgated by various authorities." Haga, 18 Va. App. 165, 

442 S.E.2d at 426. 

 Credible evidence supports the commission's finding that 

Jenkins suffered from a compensable occupational disease. In her 

June 9, 1994 letter, Dr. Dougherty reported that, based upon 

diagnostic tests and examinations, the claimant suffered from 

carpal tunnel syndrome "which is a disease involving compression 

of the median nerve causing weakness and paresthesias of the 

hand." In response to a question posed to her by Jenkins' 

attorney, Dr. Dougherty, using a definition consistent with the 

definition of "disease" approved in Piedmont, opined that 

Jenkins' carpal tunnel syndrome was a disease. Dr. Martenson 

also diagnosed Jenkins' carpal tunnel syndrome as a disease. 

 Accordingly, the commission's decision is affirmed. See id.

at 166, 442 S.E.2d at 426. 

 Affirmed.