COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

WILLIAM BYRD REED 

v. Record No. 2212-95-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

DOUGHTIE'S FOODS, INC. MARCH 26, 1996 

AND 

HOME INDEMNITY COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' 

COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Alan P. Owens, on brief), for appellant. 

 (Robert A. Rapaport; Lynne M. Ferris; 

Knight, Dudley, Clarke & Dolph, on brief), 

for appellees. 

 William Byrd Reed ("claimant") contends that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission erred in finding that he failed to prove 

that his December 22, 1993 compensable injury by accident caused 

his back symptoms or an aggravation of his preexisting back 

condition. 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. 

 On appeal, we 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). 

Unless we can say as a matter of law that claimant's evidence 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

sustained his burden of proof, the commission's findings are 

binding and conclusive upon us. Tomko v. Michael's Plastering 

Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1970). 

 In holding that claimant failed to prove he sustained a back 

injury or an aggravation of a preexisting condition causally 

related to the December 22, 1993 injury by accident, the 

commission found as follows: 

 A review of the medical record reflects that 

there were no contemporaneous complaints of 

back pain from the fall on December 22, 1993. 

 Indeed, the first report of back pain was on 

January 4, 1994, 13 days after the accident. 

 Diagnostic studies revealed 

spondylolisthesis and spondylosis in the 

lumbar region, the same condition which was 

diagnosed following the industrial injury of 

October 20, 1992. The only physician who 

evaluated the claimant for both injuries, Dr. 

[Sterling R.] Williamson, [an orthopedic 

surgeon], opined that there was no 

correlation between the current back problems 

and the accident of December 22, 1993. He 

offered this opinion after performing an 

examination and after reviewing the medical 

records related to the December 1993 

accident. Likewise, Dr. [Steven C.] Blasdell 

[an orthopedic surgeon] reached the same 

conclusion. 

The commission also found that claimant's evidence did not prove 

he sustained an aggravation of his preexisting back condition as 

a result of the December 22, 1993 accident. In so ruling, the 

commission rejected the opinions of Drs. Harry J. Molligan and 

David L. Durica, orthopedic surgeons. 

 The medical records and opinions of Drs. Williamson and 

Blasdell support the commission's decision. The commission was 
 3 

entitled to accept their opinions and to reject the contrary 

opinions of Drs. Molligan and Durica. "Questions raised by 

conflicting medical opinions must be decided by the commission." 

Penley v. Island Creek Coal Co., 8 Va. App. 310, 318, 381 S.E.2d 

231, 236 (1989). 

 Moreover, in its role as fact finder, the commission was 

entitled to determine what weight, if any, was to be given to Dr. 

Molligan's opinion. "It lies within the commission's authority 

to determine the facts and the weight of the evidence . . . ." 

Rose v. Red's Hitch & Trailer Servs., Inc., 11 Va. App. 55, 60, 

396 S.E.2d 392, 395 (1990). Dr. Molligan based his opinion upon 

an inaccurate history, because he was under the impression that 

claimant's back complaints began contemporaneously with the 

December 22, 1993 accident. Where a medical opinion is based 

upon an incomplete or inaccurate medical history, the commission 

is entitled to conclude that the opinion is of little probative 

value. See Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Bowman, 229 Va. 249, 251-52, 

329 S.E.2d 15, 16 (1985). In addition, the commission was 

entitled to find Dr. Williamson's opinion more persuasive than 

that of Dr. Durica. Dr. Williamson was the only physician who 

evaluated claimant after the October 1992 back injury and after 

the December 22, 1993 accident. 

 Based upon this record, we cannot find as a matter of law 

that claimant's evidence sustained his burden of proving that the 

December 22, 1993 injury by accident caused his back symptoms or 
 4 

an aggravation of his preexisting back condition. Accordingly, 

we affirm the commission's decision. 

 Affirmed.