COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Benton and Overton 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

SHENANDOAH INDUSTRIAL RUBBER COMPANY 

 and INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA 

v. Record No. 2445-94-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 JUDGE JAMES W. BENTON, JR. 

GARY DOUGLAS PRUETT DECEMBER 5, 1995 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 Ronnie L. Clay (Monica L. Taylor; Gentry, 

 Locke, Rakes & Moore, on briefs), for appellants. 

 Richard M. Thomas (Rider, Thomas, Cleaveland, 

 Ferris & Eakin, on brief), for appellee. 

 Shenandoah Industrial Rubber Company contends that no 

credible evidence supports the commission's finding that Gary 

Douglas Pruett proved by a preponderance of the evidence that his 

disability was caused by a work related incident. We affirm the 

commission's award. 

 When the commission's findings of fact are supported by 

credible evidence, those findings are conclusive and binding on 

this Court. Code § 65.2-706(A); Jules Hairstylists, Inc. v. 

Galanes, 1 Va. App. 64, 68, 334 S.E.2d 592, 595 (1985). In our 

review to determine whether credible evidence supports the 

commission's findings, we must view the evidence in the light 

most favorable to Pruett, the party who prevailed before the 

commission. States Roofing Corp. v. Bush Constr. Corp., 15 Va. 

App. 613, 616, 426 S.E.2d 124, 126 (1993). 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

 So viewed, the evidence proved that Pruett and Alan Plucker 

were lifting a 200 pound vulcanizer on the morning of July 15, 

1993, when Pruett experienced a pop in his lower back and dropped 

the machine. Pruett immediately stopped working and rested in a 

truck. Plucker received assistance from other men in lifting the 

vulcanizer. 

 Pruett informed his employer of his injury the following 

day. The employer completed the First Report of Accident on July 

19 and recorded that Pruett "bent over to pick up the vulcanizer 

and injured his back." Later that day, Pruett visited Dr. 

Darrell F. Powledge. After his examination revealed a herniated 

disk, Dr. Powledge referred Pruett to Dr. Leipzig who performed 

back surgery. Both doctors reported that the injury was the 

result of heavy lifting by Pruett. 

 Relying upon the deputy commissioner's "serious reservations 

with respect to the credibility of this claimant," Shenandoah 

contends that no medical evidence links Pruett's injury to 

lifting the vulcanizer and that the commission erred in reversing 

the deputy commissioner's credibility finding. We disagree. In 

finding that Pruett proved by a preponderance of the evidence an 

injury by accident causally related to his employment, the 

commission found that Pruett's testimony was consistent with the 

documentary and medical evidence. The record contains evidence 

from Pruett's co-worker that describes, consistent with Pruett's 

testimony, an onset of pain when Pruett lifted the 200 pound 
- 3 - 

vulcanizer. The record also proved that Pruett reported the 

incident and injury to Shenandoah on the day following the 

incident. 

 The commission also found that the medical reports are 

consistent with Pruett's testimony and the First Report of 

Accident. Although the medical reports describe three days of 

heavy lifting as contributing to Pruett's discomfort, the 

commission found that those reports do "not conflict with the 

happening of a discrete injury by accident." In support of that 

finding, the evidence proved that Pruett informed the doctors of 

the specific incident. The evidence proved that on the same day 

Pruett gave the employer the report of the specific incident 

occurring on July 15, he saw Dr. Powledge. Pruett's testimony 

that he reported the incident to Dr. Powledge is supported by a 

notation on one of Dr. Powledge's reports indicating the 

following: "D/A: 7-15-93 . . . back . . . lifting vulcanizer." 

 This evidence is credible support for the commission's 

findings that the medical report, the First Report of Accident, 

and the co-worker's testimony all contain evidence of a 

compensable injury by accident. As found by the commission, 

those reports and testimony are consistent with Pruett's 

testimony. Thus, we hold that the commission has "articulate[d] 

a basis for its . . . conclusion that is supported by credible 

evidence in the record." Williams v. Auto Brokers, 6 Va. App. 

570, 575, 370 S.E.2d 321, 324 (1988). See also Goodyear Tire & 
- 4 - 

Rubber Company v. Pierce, 5 Va. App. 374, 383, 363 S.E.2d 433, 

438 (1987). Accordingly, we affirm the commission's award. 

 Affirmed.