COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

JOSEPH BERTRAM PACKETT, III 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1752-98-2 PER CURIAM 

 JANUARY 19, 1999 

POTOMAC SUPPLY CORPORATION AND 

 FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE 

 COMPANY OF WISCONSIN 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Joseph Bertram Packett, III, pro se). 

 (Daniel E. Lynch; John T. Cornett, Jr.; 

Williams & Lynch, on brief), for appellees. 

 Joseph Bertram Packett, III ("claimant") contends that the 

Workers' Compensation Commission ("commission") erred in finding 

that his claim was barred due to his failure to give timely 

notice of his alleged July 31, 1996 injury by accident to Potomac 

Supply Corporation ("employer") as required by Code § 65.2-600. 

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. 

 An employee is not entitled to receive compensation or 

medical expenses unless the employee has given the employer 

written notice of the accident within thirty days, unless the 

employee had reasonable excuse or the employer had knowledge of 

the accident. See Code § 65.2-600. Unless claimant proved as a 

 

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

this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

matter of law that either he gave employer timely notice of his 

alleged July 31, 1996 accident; that employer had actual 

knowledge of the accident; or that claimant was justified in 

failing to give timely notice, 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 ruling that claimant failed to meet his burden of proof, 

the commission made the following findings: 

 The claimant testified at length about 

communications he had with various personnel 

at the employer with regard to his condition. 

 At one point, the claimant began by saying 

that he specifically told Mr. Clegg that he 

tripped over a cord. However, he immediately 

recanted this statement and admitted that 

"well, I didn't tell him, I just pointed to 

it, showed him the fan[.]" Other statements 

by the claimant were equally vague and, at 

times, internally inconsistent. . . . 

 Representatives of the employer[, 

including John Clegg, David Rector, Richard 

Connelly, and Ann Swann,] uniformly denied 

having been notified by the claimant of his 

alleged accident of July 31, 1996. Both Mr. 

Rector and Ms. Swann testified that the 

claimant referred only generally to pain he 

was having with his back. He did not mention 

any difficulty with his neck. They also 

stated that the claimant did not refer to a 

specific accident or event that may have 

occurred on July 31. The testimony of the 

employer's representatives is in a conflict 

with that offered by the claimant, and the 

Deputy Commissioner implicitly resolved the 

conflict in favor of the employer. We will 

not disturb such determinations here. 

 The commission's findings are amply supported by the record. 

 As fact finder, the commission was entitled to weigh the 

evidence and to resolve the inconsistencies in the witnesses' 
- 3 - 

testimony in favor of employer. 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). The commission was free to 

accept the testimony of employers' witnesses. Based upon their 

testimony, we cannot find as a matter of law that claimant's 

evidence sustained his burden of proving that employer had actual 

knowledge of his alleged accident; that he gave timely notice of 

his alleged accident as required by Code § 65.2-600; or that he 

had a reasonable excuse for giving late notice.1

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

 Affirmed. 

 

 1Claimant argues that Employer's First Report of Accident, 

filed with the commission on December 5, 1996, established that 

claimant notified employer of his alleged accident. This 

argument is without merit. The report, filed after claimant 

filed his Claim for Benefits, clearly stated that claimant did 

not make employer aware of any "specific accident, incident, or 

injury . . . ."