COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Clements and Senior Judge Coleman 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

RAYMOND EARL HOLT, JR. 

v. Record No. 2349-01-2 

DRUCKER AND FAULK, INC. AND 

 MONGOMERY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 JUDGE SAM W. COLEMAN III 

 APRIL 23, 2002 

DRUCKER AND FAULK, INC. AND 

 MONTGOMERY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY 

v. Record No. 2456-01-2 

RAYMOND EARL HOLT, JR. 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 Louis D. Snesil (Louis D. Snesil, P.C., on 

briefs), for Raymond Earl Holt, Jr. 

 Jimese Pendergraft Sherrill (Christine A. 

McKee-Clark; Siciliano, Dyer, Ellis & 

Boccarosse, on briefs), for Drucker and 

Faulk, Inc. and Montgomery Mutual Insurance 

Company. 

 Drucker and Faulk, Inc. and its insurer (hereinafter 

referred to as "employer") appeal a decision of the Workers' 

Compensation Commission awarding medical benefits to Raymond 

Earl Holt, Jr. (claimant). Employer contends the commission 

erred in finding that claimant proved he sustained a compensable 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
injury by accident to his right leg on June 16, 2000. On 

cross-appeal, claimant contends the commission erred in finding 

he failed to prove that his disabling headaches were causally 

related to his June 16, 2000 injury by accident. Finding no 

error, we affirm the commission's decisions. 

I. Injury by Accident

 "In order to carry [the] burden of proving an 'injury by 

accident,' a claimant must prove that the cause of [the] injury 

was an identifiable incident or sudden precipitating event and 

that it resulted in an obvious sudden mechanical or structural

change in the body." Morris v. Morris, 238 Va. 578, 589, 385 

S.E.2d 858, 865 (1989). Factual findings made by the commission 

will be upheld on appeal if supported by credible evidence. See

James v. Capitol Steel Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382 

S.E.2d 487, 488 (1989). 

 The commission ruled that claimant proved he sustained a 

compensable injury by accident to his right leg, finding that 

his evidence proved an identifiable incident while in the course 

of his employment, on June 16, 2000, that caused or resulted in 

a sudden mechanical or structural change to his body. In so 

ruling, the commission found: 

[T]he claimant felt a sting and noticed 

blood on his ankle while in the course and 

scope of his employment. We find that his 

inability to prove what caused the puncture 

marks on his right ankle is not dispositive 

- 2 -
of this matter. Although the claimant 

cannot positively identify the source of the 

sting or the cause of the wound, he has 

presented sufficient evidence to causally 

connect the wound with the employment. 

While his physicians are unable to 

definitively conclude that a snake bit him, 

no physician disputes that the wound on his 

right ankle was caused by a bite of some 

sort. We find that as a maintenance 

technician and grounds man, the claimant was 

required to maintain and upkeep the area in 

and around the employer's drainage ditch, 

and therefore, the employment included the 

risk of insect, rodent or snake bites. 

 The commission's factual findings are supported by credible 

evidence, including claimant's testimony and the medical records 

of Drs. H. Thompson Mann and James W. Brooks, Jr. 

 Claimant testified that while he was collecting trash from 

a drainage ditch on June 16, 2000, he "noticed a little sting" 

on his ankle. He looked down and saw blood, but did not see 

what had caused his ankle to bleed. He saw fleas on his sock. 

Claimant sought medical treatment four days later at Patient 

First, where he reported he had been bitten by fleas. 

 On June 20, 2000, Dr. Mann treated claimant at the 

St. Mary's Hospital emergency room. Dr. Mann reported that 

claimant had brushed fleas from his lower extremities while 

cleaning an apartment. Claimant also reported that he had 

walked through grass that was above his ankles, and when he 

walked away from that area, he felt a stinging sensation and saw 

some blood on his ankle. Dr. Mann's examination showed two 

- 3 -
puncture wounds about one centimeter apart on claimant's lower 

extremity. The area was mildly discolored, mildly swollen, and 

tender. Although claimant stated that he did not see a snake, 

Dr. Mann opined that most likely a snake had bitten claimant. 

On June 26, 2000, Dr. Mann reported that the claimant "has what 

looks like a snake bite (in Hospital last week) and he will be 

out of work probably thru rest of this week." 

 On July 5, 2000, claimant saw Dr. Brooks, an infectious 

disease specialist. Dr. Brooks also concluded that claimant's 

history and the appearance of the wounds suggested a venomous 

snakebite. Dr. Brooks later opined in a letter to Dr. Mann that 

he believed claimant's symptoms were suggestive of a copperhead 

snakebite. 

 Based upon this credible evidence, the commission, as fact 

finder, could reasonably infer that claimant sustained a bite 

from either an insect, rodent, or snake, while working for 

employer on June 16, 2000, which caused the sudden mechanical or 

structural change in his body - i.e. the puncture wound and 

swelling. "Where reasonable inferences may be drawn from the 

evidence in support of the commission's factual findings, they 

will not be disturbed by this Court on appeal." Hawks v. 

Henrico County Sch. Bd., 7 Va. App. 398, 404, 374 S.E.2d 695, 

698 (1988). As fact finder, the commission was entitled to 

resolve any inconsistencies between claimant's testimony and his 

- 4 -
co-workers' testimony in favor of claimant. It is well settled 

that credibility determinations are within the fact finder's 

exclusive purview. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Pierce, 5 Va. 

App. 374, 381, 363 S.E.2d 433, 437 (1987). 

II. Headaches

 Here, on this issue, we also view the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the prevailing party below, in this instance 

the employer. 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 sustained his burden of 

proving that his headaches were causally related to his 

compensable injury by accident, 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). 

 Claimant relies upon Dr. Mann's office notes and Dr. J. Kim 

Harris' opinion to support his argument that his disabling 

headaches were causally related to his snakebite. Claimant 

argues that the only disabling aspects of the injury were the 

headaches and Dr. Mann's report of June 26, 2000, that claimant 

would "be out of work probably thru rest of this week," was 

sufficient to establish the causal relationship between the 

snakebite and headaches. However, as the commission noted, 

although Dr. Mann specifically attributed claimant's right leg 

wound to the snakebite, he never stated or rendered an opinion 

- 5 -
that claimant's chronic, severe headaches were caused by the 

snakebite or the right leg wound. In addition, although 

Dr. Harris attributed claimant's headaches to the snakebite, he 

did so based solely upon a temporal connection. Dr. Harris 

admitted that he was not a snakebite expert. Furthermore, 

because Dr. Harris did not treat claimant until almost three 

months after the injury, he would not have had an opportunity to 

view claimant's wound. Dr. Brooks opined, that even if a snake 

had bitten claimant, headaches would be an unusual consequence. 

 The commission, as fact finder, was entitled to weigh all 

of the medical evidence. It did so and concluded that claimant 

failed to establish a causal relationship between his headaches 

and his compensable injury. We do not reweigh the evidence. 

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

claimant's evidence sustained his burden of proof. 

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

Affirmed.

- 6 -