COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Benton and Annunziata 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

STRICTLY STUMPS, INC. AND 

 TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE COMPANY 

 OPINION BY 

v. Record No. 0523-00-4 CHIEF JUDGE JOHANNA L. FITZPATRICK 

 NOVEMBER 21, 2000 

GEORGE ROBERT ENOCH 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 Dawn E. Boyce (Trichilo, Bancroft, McGavin, 

Horvath & Judkins, P.C., on brief), for 

appellants. 

 No brief or argument for appellee. 

 Strictly Stumps, Inc. ("employer") contends the Workers' 

Compensation Commission ("commission") erred in awarding medical 

benefits to George Robert Enoch ("claimant"). On appeal, 

employer argues the commission erred in finding: (1) that 

claimant established an "injury by accident" to his right foot 

on September 1, 1997; and (2) that medical treatment rendered in 

August 1998 was causally related to that "injury by accident." 

Because credible evidence supports the commission's decision, we 

affirm. 

I. 

 "On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the claimant, who prevailed before the commission." 
Allen & Rocks, Inc. v. Briggs, 28 Va. App. 662, 672, 508 S.E.2d 

335, 340 (1998) (citations omitted). "'Decisions of the 

commission as to questions of fact, if supported by credible 

evidence, are conclusive and binding on this Court.'" Id.

(quoting Manassas Ice & Fuel Co. v. Farrar, 13 Va. App. 227, 

229, 409 S.E.2d 824, 826 (1991)). "'The fact that there is 

contrary evidence in the record is of no consequence.'" Id.

(quoting Wagner Enters., Inc. v. Brooks, 12 Va. App. 890, 894, 

407 S.E.2d 32, 35 (1991)). 

 Claimant testified that on September 1, 1997, while working 

as a groundsman, he was injured when a tree fell on his right 

foot. He initially thought he had sustained a sprain or pulled 

ligaments. He missed one day of work, but testified that the 

pain increased until he left the job in December 1997. 

Employer's witness, Dean Sielbold, testified he remembered a 

tree falling around claimant in early September 1997. He also 

testified that claimant told him his foot hurt after the tree 

fell. Dana Woolsey, employer's last witness, testified that he 

saw the tree hit claimant's foot on the left side. 

 It was not until August 30, 1998 that claimant sought 

treatment at Mount Vernon Hospital. The triage note from the 

hospital reflected an injury to claimant's foot one year earlier 

with intermittent pain. He was referred to Dr. Stephen C. 

Saddler, an orthopedic physician, who diagnosed "early 

- 2 -
degenerative arthritis of the right ankle with possible loose 

bodies" and recommended conservative treatment. Dr. Saddler's 

initial notes also reflect the incident one year earlier and 

intermittent pain following the incident. The commission found 

that claimant sustained an injury by accident on September 1, 

1997 and that the medical treatment was causally related to that 

accident. 

II. 

 Employer first contends the evidence is insufficient to 

establish an injury by accident. The commission found: 

 Neither witness for the employer 

contradicted [claimant's] testimony that the 

tree fell on his foot. Siebold could not 

remember which foot he said was hurt 

immediately after the accident. Woolsey 

thought the tree had fallen on the side of 

his left foot and recalled complaints of 

ankle pain. He also recalled advising the 

claimant to seek medical attention. The 

minor discrepancies between the testimony of 

Woolsey and the claimant are 

inconsequential. 

Credible evidence supports this finding. 

 Employer next argues the commission erred in finding that 

the medical treatment rendered in August 1998 and continuing was 

causally related to that injury by accident. Citing generally 

to Dollar General Store v. Cridlin, 22 Va. App. 171, 468 S.E.2d 

152 (1996), employer asserts that there must be consistent 

factual testimony and an obvious link from which causation can 

- 3 -
be inferred when there is no definitive medical statement 

regarding causation. Employer, however, gives no page reference 

or quote to support such a reading of Cridlin. We find nothing 

in Cridlin that limits the commission's ability to consider 

medical evidence and the claimant's testimony in determining 

causation. Indeed, "[t]he commission's determination regarding 

causation is a finding of fact and is binding on appeal when 

supported by credible evidence." Marcus v. Arlington County Bd. 

of Supervisors, 15 Va. App. 544, 551, 425 S.E.2d 525, 530 (1993) 

(citations omitted). Because it is a factual determination, 

"[t]he testimony of a claimant may also be considered in 

determining causation, especially where the medical testimony is 

inconclusive." Cridlin, 22 Va. App. at 176, 468 S.E.2d at 154. 

Thus, we held in Cridlin that where "the [medical] reports 

reflect only the results of claimant's physical examination and 

do not purport to establish the cause or causes of her injury[,] 

. . . the commission was free to credit claimant's testimony at 

the hearing as a basis for its finding of causation." Id. at 

177, 468 S.E.2d at 155 (citation omitted). 

 The uncontradicted medical evidence and claimant's 

testimony as well as the testimony of employer's witnesses 

support the commission's conclusion that the medical treatment 

was causally related to the injury by accident. The commission 

found: 

- 4 -
 The evidence presented by the claimant, 

in conjunction with the medical reports, 

shows a causal link between the accident and 

resulting medical care. Both the emergency 

room and Dr. Saddler reported an injury 

occurring in the fall of 1997. For example, 

the triage note described a one-year-old 

right ankle injury that had remained 

symptomatic for one year. The emergency 

room physician also relayed an injury to the 

right ankle one year before and that 

claimant had suffered intermittent pain 

since the event. Similarly, Dr. Saddler 

noted that the tree struck his foot in the 

fall of the previous year and that he simply 

self-treated until the pain became 

unbearable. The claimant did not report or 

testify to any contrary history; he did not 

assert any type of intervening or past 

problem. There was no mention of an 

alternative trauma or other causative 

factor. 

 The record in this case does not establish that the medical 

issue was so complex that the commission made findings in an 

area that could only be properly decided by medical experts. 

Because the testimony and medical evidence are uncontradicted 

and credible evidence supports the commission's finding, we 

affirm. 

 Affirmed.

- 5 -