COURT OF APPEALS OF 

VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

YOKOHAMA TIRE CORPORATION 

AND 

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY 

 OF ILLINOIS MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

v. Record No. 3012-95-3 JULY 2, 1996 

 

KAREN CAMPBELL BLANKENSHIP 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Richard D. Lucas; Woods, Rogers & 

Hazlegrove; Carter, Brown & Osborne, on 

briefs), for appellants. 

 (Rhonda L. Overstreet; Lumsden & Overstreet, 

on brief), for appellee. 

 Yokohama Tire Corporation and its insurer (hereinafter 

referred to as employer) contend that the Workers' Compensation 

Commission erred in holding employer responsible for the cost of 

Karen Campbell Blankenship's (claimant) May 18, 1995 cervical 

fusion surgery. Employer argues that (1) the surgery was not 

reasonable and necessary as required by Code § 65.2-603; and (2) 

the commission erred as a matter of law in shifting the burden of 

proving the reasonableness and necessity of the surgery from 

claimant to employer. 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 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

5A:27. 

 On appellate review, we must 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). "[I]t is fundamental that a finding of fact made by the 

commission is binding and conclusive upon this court on review. 

A question raised by conflicting medical opinion is a question of 

fact." Commonwealth v. Powell, 2 Va. App. 712, 714, 347 S.E.2d 

532, 533 (1986). "Medical evidence is not necessarily 

conclusive, but is subject to the commission's consideration and 

weighing." Hungerford Mechanical Corp. v. Hobson, 11 Va. App. 

675, 677, 401 S.E.2d 213, 214 (1991). 

 The commission was entitled to accept the opinions of 

claimant's treating physiatrist, Dr. Verna Lewis, and her 

treating orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Hallett H. Mathews, and to 

reject the contrary opinions of Drs. Laurence I. Kleiner, John A. 

Feldenzer, Murray E. Joiner, and Herbert W. Park. The opinions 

of Drs. Kleiner and Feldenzer date to June and July 1994. 

Moreover, the conservative treatment they recommended, which Dr. 

Lewis followed during the six-month period after they rendered 

these opinions, proved unsuccessful. Dr. Joiner examined 

claimant on one occasion at the request of employer. The 

commission correctly noted that Dr. Joiner's suggestion that 

claimant's symptoms were not real and that she was motivated by 

secondary gain conflicted with evidence indicating that she had 
 3 

continually tried to return to work and had endured various forms 

of treatment, including physical therapy, work hardening, and 

injections. Dr. Park, hired by employer to perform a medical 

record review, never examined claimant. In addition, he 

acknowledged that his conclusions were made prior to receiving 

claimant's complete medical records and that he wanted to give 

employer "other steps to resolve the case," but that he wanted to 

"discuss this subject first." In its role as fact finder, the 

commission was entitled to infer from these facts that Dr. Park 

lacked objectivity and may have been biased against claimant. 

The opinions of Drs. Lewis and Mathews provide credible evidence 

to support the commission's finding that the May 18, 1995 

cervical fusion surgery was reasonable and necessary. 

Accordingly, the commission did not err in holding employer 

responsible for the cost of the surgery. 

 Employer's argument that the commission erred in shifting 

the burden of proof is without merit. Once claimant proved, 

through the opinions of her treating physiatrist and orthopedic 

surgeon, that the surgery was reasonable and necessary, the 

commission did nothing more than require employer to rebut 

claimant's evidence. 

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

 Affirmed.