COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judge Annunziata and Senior Judge Duff 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

UNINSURED EMPLOYERS' FUND 

v. Record No. 1965-95-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 JUDGE CHARLES H. DUFF 

DEHANG CHEN MARCH 19, 1996 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' 

COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 Paul S. Stahl, Assistant Attorney General 

(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General; 

John J. Beall, Jr., Senior Assistant 

Attorney General, on brief), for appellant. 

 Dehang Chen, pro se. 

 Uninsured Employers' Fund appeals from a decision in which 

the Workers' Compensation Commission affirmed the deputy 

commissioner's award of medical benefits to Dehang Chen (Chen). 

The commission found that Chen suffered a work-related injury to 

his head when he walked into a parking sign after delivering food 

for his employer, owner of the New Beijing Restaurant. The issue 

presented in this appeal is whether the commission erred in 

finding that Chen suffered a work-related injury to the right 

side of his head from walking into a parking sign when the 

medical records indicate Chen was treated for an injury on the 

left side of his head caused by hitting a pipe or bar. We affirm 

the commission's decision. 

 Chen delivered food for the New Beijing Restaurant. On 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

August 2, 1993, Chen was returning to the restaurant after making 

a delivery when he walked into a parking sign. Chen stated that 

he hit the right side of his head on the sign, and felt pain and 

saw "stars." Chen told his employer that he hit the right side 

of his head on a parking sign and pointed to the right side of 

his head. His employer did not see any marks or swelling on 

Chen's head. 

 On August 9, 1993, Chen sought medical treatment for this 

injury, complaining of headache, nausea, and garbled speech. The 

initial history form states that Chen was "struck on the front 

part of his head by a metal bar which fell." Other medical 

records indicate that Chen hit his head on a "low running pipe." 

 Chen was diagnosed as suffering a left posterior parietal 

intercerebral hematoma, likely to be "at least one week old." 

This diagnosis was consistent with Chen's symptoms. 

 On appellate review, the factual findings of the commission 

are binding if they are supported by credible evidence. Wagner 

Enters., Inc. v. Brooks, 12 Va. App. 890, 894, 407 S.E.2d 32, 35 

(1991); James v. Capitol Steel Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 

382 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1989). The fact that there is contrary 

evidence in the record is of no consequence if there is credible 

evidence to support the commission's finding. Franklin Mortgage 

Corp. v. Walker, 6 Va. App. 108, 110-11, 367 S.E.2d 191, 193 

(1988) (en banc). "In determining whether credible evidence 

exists, the appellate court does not retry the facts, reweigh the 
 3 

preponderance of the evidence, or make its own determination of 

the credibility of the witnesses." Wagner Enters., Inc., 12 Va. 

App. at 894, 407 S.E.2d at 35. 

 The commission found that Chen established that the workrelated injury to his head necessitated the medical treatment he 

sought seven days after the accident. The Uninsured Employers' 

Fund argues that this factual finding is not supported by 

credible evidence. We disagree. Chen testified that he injured 

the right side of his head by walking into a parking sign. He 

reported these facts to his employer. A week later, when Chen 

sought medical treatment, he was diagnosed as having a head 

injury, likely to be "at least one week old." Chen was not 

fluent in English. His testimony before the deputy commissioner 

and the "history" given to his health care providers was through 

a translator. Chen's symptoms included garbled speech. The 

commissioner reasonably inferred that the inconsistencies, 

regarding which side of his head was injured and by what, were 

caused by translation and speech problems. The commission's 

findings of fact are supported by credible evidence and the 

inferences drawn from those facts are reasonable. 

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

 Affirmed.