COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Fitzpatrick 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

JOSEPH BLACKWELL 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1842-94-4 JUDGE JAMES W. BENTON, JR. 

 JUNE 6, 1995 

APRIL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. AND 

 UNINSURED EMPLOYER'S FUND 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 Benjamin J. Trichilo (Lewis, Trichilo, Bancroft, 

 McGavin & Horvath, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. 

 Paul S. Stahl, Assistant Attorney General (James S. 

 Gilmore, III, Attorney General; John J. Beall, Jr., 

 Senior Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for 

 the Uninsured Employer's Fund. 

 No brief or argument for April Construction Co., Inc. 

 Joseph Blackwell appeals from a decision by the majority of 

the commission that his injury did not result from a risk of 

employment. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the 

decision. 

 I. 

 The evidence proved that Blackwell was employed by April 

Construction as a painter. On July 4, 1993, Blackwell was 

sanding the front of a door at a residence preparatory to 

painting. As he "was bending over sanding [the door] at the same 

time," he felt a pop in his back. Because of the excruciating 

pain he had to leave work. 

 Dr. John C. Bucur diagnosed Blackwell's injury as 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

"lumbosacral strain . . . with the possibility of a ruptured 

lumbar disc at L4-5 on the left side." Dr. Bucur opined that 

Blackwell's injury was caused by the sanding and bending activity 

at work. He also opined that the injury was not connected with 

any previous injury. 

 After the incident that gave rise to Blackwell's claim, 

April Construction ceased doing business. Because April 

Construction was not insured, the claim was defended by the 

Uninsured Employer's Fund. Stating that "[t]he mere happening of 

an injury at the workplace is not sufficient" to prove a 

compensable injury, the commission found that Blackwell's proof 

that he was doing "nothing more" than bending while sanding the 

door failed to establish that his injury resulted from being in 

an "awkward or unusual position." 

 II. 

 The principle is well established that "if the injury can be 

seen to have followed as a natural incident of the work and to 

have been contemplated by a reasonable person familiar with the 

whole situation as a result of the exposure occasioned by the 

nature of the employment, then it arises 'out of' the 

employment." Bradshaw v. Aronovitch, 170 Va. 329, 335, 196 S.E. 

684, 686 (1938). Furthermore, a risk of employment need not 

involve unusual exertion. 

 "To constitute injury by accident it is not 

necessary that there should be an 

extraordinary occurrence in or about the work 

engaged in." The evidence is sufficient to 

establish an injury by accident "even though 
 3 

the degree of exertion is usual and ordinary 

and 'the workman had some predisposing 

physical weakness.'" 

Kemp v. Tidewater Kiewit, 7 Va. App. 360, 363, 373 S.E.2d 725, 

726 (1988)(citations omitted). 

 Although a risk of employment may appear to be more obvious 

if the work activity requires unusual exertion, "[t]hat the 

activity was usual, and did not require exertion, and that the 

injury was not 'foreseen or expected' are irrelevant" if the 

injury follows as a natural incident of the work. Grove v. 

Allied Signal, Inc., 15 Va. App. 17, 22, 421 S.E.2d 32, 35 

(1992). Blackwell's uncontradicted testimony that he was bending 

and sanding the lower part of the door when he suffered his 

injury was sufficient to prove "that the conditions of the 

workplace . . . caused [his] injury." Plumb Rite Plumbing 

Service v. Barbour, 8 Va. App. 482, 484, 382 S.E.2d 305, 306 

(1989). 

 Because the evidence proved that Blackwell's injury by 

accident arose out of his employment, we reverse the decision. 

 Reversed.