COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Willis, Frank and Clements 

DOUGLAS WAYNE BASHAM 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1099-01-2 PER CURIAM 

 AUGUST 28, 2001 

CRESTAR BANK/SUNTRUST BANK AND 

 MADISON INSURANCE COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (T. Bryan Byrne, on briefs), for appellant. 

 (Jennifer G. Marwitz; Law Offices of Roya 

Palmer Ewing, on brief), for appellees. 

 

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

designated for publication. 

 Douglas Wayne Basham contends that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission erred in holding that he failed to prove 

that on March 29, 2000 he sustained an injury by accident 

arising out of his employment. Upon reviewing the record and 

the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is 

without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the 

commission's decision. See Rule 5A:27. 

 Whether an injury "arose out of" the employment is a mixed 

question of law and fact. Park Oil Co. v. Parham, 1 Va. App. 

166, 168, 336 S.E.2d 531, 532 (1985). We must, therefore, 

"determine whether the facts presented are sufficient as a 
matter of law to justify the commission's finding." Hercules, 

Inc. v. Stump, 2 Va. App. 77, 78, 341 S.E.2d 394, 395 (1986). 

 To receive compensation benefits, a claimant must prove 

that he suffered an injury by accident that arose out of and in 

the course of the employment. See County of Chesterfield v. 

Johnson, 237 Va. 180, 183, 376 S.E.2d 73, 74 (1989). An injury 

"arises out of" the employment if a causal connection exists 

between the claimant's injury and "'the conditions under which 

the employer requires the work to be performed,'" Grove v.

Allied Signal, Inc., 15 Va. App. 17, 19, 421 S.E.2d 32, 34 

(1992) (citation omitted), or "some significant work related 

exertion caused the injury," Plumb Rite Plumbing Service v. 

Barbour, 8 Va. App. 482, 484, 382 S.E.2d 305, 306 (1989). 

"'Under this test, 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. But 

it excludes an injury which cannot fairly be 

traced to the employment as a contributing 

proximate cause and which comes from a 

hazard to which the workmen would have been 

equally exposed apart from the employment. 

The causative danger must be peculiar to the 

work and not common to the neighborhood. It 

must be incidental to the character of the 

business and not independent of the relation 

of master and servant. It need not have 

been foreseen or expected, but after the 

event it must appear to have had its origin 

in a risk connected with the employment, and 

to have flowed from that source as a 

rational consequence.'" 

- 2 -
R & T Investments, Ltd. v. Johns, 228 Va. 249, 252-53, 321 

S.E.2d 287, 289 (1984) (citations omitted). 

 Basham testified that on March 29, 2000, he worked for 

Crestar Bank/SunTrust Bank (employer) overseeing computerized 

"batch production control," and monitoring lines between 

employer and different banks. At the time, Crestar Bank was 

merging with SunTrust Bank. 

 Basham described his work area as a fifteen to twenty-yard 

long aisle. He stated that he sat in a rolling chair very close 

to a table and his keyboard, which ran along one side of the 

aisle. Computer monitors were in front of Basham and above him, 

and other tables were approximately four feet behind him. The 

tables behind him were used by employees to store various 

personal belongings. At times, other employees walked in the 

aisle behind his chair. Basham stated that he had collided with 

such persons a couple of times in the past when arising from his 

chair. He testified that as part of his job, when a "tape 

mount" indicator lit up on his computer, he was required to 

leave his chair and go to another room to mount a tape as 

quickly as possible. 

 On March 29, 2000, while sitting in his chair, Basham saw 

the tape mount indicator light up. As a result, he needed to 

retrieve a tape from another room and mount it in a different 

room. He testified that he "started twisting and coming up out 

of [his] chair." He stated, "When I seen the tape mount I spun 

- 3 -
out of my chair, twisting my back at the same time where I 

wouldn't have to throw my chair back . . . and when I stood up I 

felt a pinching, burning sensation in my left buttocks." He 

admitted that rather than twisting up out of his chair, he could 

simply have turned his head to see if anyone was coming behind 

him. 

 Basham described the incident in an e-mail to his 

supervisor as follows: "got out of chair." He did not mention 

anything about twisting. His supervisor, Robert Kerlaveg, 

testified that Basham never told him he twisted up out of the 

chair because he was in a hurry to mount a tape. 

 The medical records reflect that when Basham was examined 

by Dr. Des P. Moore shortly after the March 29, 2000 incident, 

he mentioned nothing about twisting to get out of his chair at 

work. On May 16, 2000, when he was first examined by 

Dr. David S. Geckle, Basham reported the following history: 

"[A]t work and he just stood up and suddenly developed severe 

back and leg pain that has been progressive and unrelenting 

since." It was undisputed that claimant had suffered from back 

problems before March 29, 2000 and that he had undergone two 

previous back surgeries for a herniated disc at the L5-S1 level. 

 Based upon this record, the commission held as follows: 

[I]t does not appear that the claimant was 

in an awkward or cramped situation when he 

stood up to get out of his chair. Although 

arguably he twisted to avoid backing up and 

bumping into someone, the evidence suggests 

- 4 -
that in standing he aggravated a previous 

back problem and this simple standing does 

not arise out of his employment. 

 The evidence supports the commission's holding that no 

condition of Basham's workplace caused or contributed to his 

back injury on March 29, 2000. The evidence did not prove that 

he was required as a condition of his employment to twist up 

from his chair from an awkward position. Rather, the evidence 

proved that his work area was configured in such a manner that 

he could have looked to see if anyone was behind him, pushed his 

chair back, and then stood up from it. The fact that he chose 

to do otherwise did not constitute a "causative danger" that 

"had its origin in a risk connected with the employment." 

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

 Affirmed.

- 5 -