COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Elder and Annunziata 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

UTILITY TRAILER MANUFACTURING and 

 LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE 

 COMPANY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0823-95-3 JUDGE JAMES W. BENTON, JR. 

 APRIL 23, 1996 

JAMES ARVILLE PRATER 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 Monica L. Taylor (Christopher M. Kite; 

Gentry, Locke, Rakes & Moore, on briefs), for 

appellants. 

 Ginger Jonas Largen (J. D. Morefield; 

Morefield, Kendrick, Hess & Largen, P.C., on 

brief), for appellee. 

 The employer, Utility Trailer Manufacturing, contends that 

the commission erred in failing to consider the employer's cross 

appeal and finding that James Arville Prater proved a causal link 

between his disability and a work related incident. We affirm 

the commission's award. 

 I. 

 At the evidentiary hearing, Prater testified that on May 10, 

1993, he and other employees were building a second level onto a 

stockroom. They were lifting 500 pound steel flooring slabs and 

carrying them on narrow beams. When Prater and a group of coworkers lifted the third flooring slab, Prater injured his lower 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

back. He told his co-workers that he had hurt his back, and he 

did no more lifting that day. Later that day, he felt pain in 

his legs. 

 The next day, Prater informed his supervisor, Don Ross, that 

he injured his back. Prater testified that he continued to work 

with pain and did not see a doctor because his wife was pregnant 

and he needed to work. He also testified that he complained on 

several occasions to Ross and his co-workers that he was having 

back trouble. 

 Ross testified that Prater did complain to him of a back 

injury in May or the early summer. He testified he took no 

action because he regularly heard complaints from employees. 

Ross could not recall whether Prater told him how he had hurt his 

back and did not recall Prater making further complaints until 

several months later when Prater left work complaining of back 

pain. 

 Prater testified that on October 13, 1993, his back problems 

flared up after operating a jackhammer. He then made an 

appointment to see his doctor and left work. Before Prater could 

receive medical treatment from his doctor, the employer made an 

appointment for him to see Dr. James McDowell. Prater told Dr. 

McDowell that he injured his lower back while laying flooring at 

the plant. Dr. McDowell diagnosed chronic low back pain and 

ordered Prater to cease work. 

 Dr. McDowell also referred Prater to Dr. Larry Lipscomb, an 
- 3 - 

orthopaedic specialist. According to Dr. Lipscomb, Prater 

reported that "sometime in May '93, [he was] working with heavy 

steel" and injured his back. After concluding that Prater was 

not a surgical candidate, Dr. Lipscomb referred Prater to Dr. 

David Sossamon, a chiropractor. In a letter to Dr. Lipscomb 

dated February 8, 1994, Dr. Sossamon reported that Prater 

informed him that "he lifted steel in May, 1993 and hurt his low 

back." Based on his "interpretation of events, examinations and 

MRI," Dr. Sossamon opined that Prater "injured his lumbar spine 

on the job sometime in May, 1993." 

 The deputy commissioner accepted Prater's testimony 

regarding the incident that occurred on May 10, 1993, and ruled 

that the evidence proved an injury by accident. However, he 

found insufficient evidence causally relating Prater's injury to 

the incident and denied Prater's claim. Prater filed an 

application for review on the issue of causation. The employer 

filed a cross appeal challenging the deputy commissioner's 

finding that Prater had suffered an injury by accident on May 10, 

1993. 

 II. 

 Viewed in its entirety, the commission's opinion establishes 

that the commission considered and decided the issue raised by 

the employer's cross appeal, i.e., whether the evidence proved an 

injury by accident. The opinion recites the evidence in the 

record that proved Prater suffered an injury by accident. That 
- 4 - 

recitation included Prater's unimpeached testimony, the 

supervisor's testimony that Prater told him in May that he hurt 

his back, and the testimony of Prater's co-workers that Prater 

complained of back pain. The commission then ruled as follows: 

 From this record the Deputy Commissioner 

concluded that [Prater] did sustain an 

accident in May, 1993, while lifting steel 

flooring. He further found, however, that 

the medical records do not causally relate 

his disability in November, 1993, to the 

accident in May. We disagree with this 

latter determination. 

 Although the commission could have more explicitly stated 

that the evidence it reviewed was credible and proved an injury 

by accident, we conclude that the commission tacitly and 

implicitly ruled that an injury by accident was proved by 

credible evidence. That ruling is manifest from the commission's 

recitation of the two findings of the deputy commissioner and the 

commission's explicit statement that it disagreed only with the 

finding regarding causality. 

 The commission's recitation of the evidence concerning the 

onset of injury also refutes the employer's claim. The 

commission was not required to make a specific determination that 

Prater's testimony was credible. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. 

Pierce, 5 Va. App. 374, 383, 363 S.E.2d 433, 438 (1987). There 

was no evidence before the commission contrary to Prater's 

testimony, and the deputy commissioner made no finding that 

Prater's testimony was incredible. In determining whether 

credible evidence supports the commission's ruling, "[w]e will 
- 5 - 

not substitute form over substance." Island Creek Coal Co. v. 

Breeding, 6 Va. App. 1, 11, 365 S.E.2d 782, 788 (1988). Prater's 

testimony credibly proved that he suffered an injury by accident 

on May 10, 1993, and the commission so ruled in its opinion on 

review. 

 III. 

 "The actual determination of causation is a factual finding 

that will not be disturbed on appeal if there is credible 

evidence to support the finding." Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Musick, 

7 Va. App. 684, 688, 376 S.E.2d 814, 817 (1989); Code § 65.2-706. 

 All the medical reports link the cause of Prater's injury to the 

work related injury. However, we need not look beyond Dr. 

Sossamon's report which the commission relied upon. When a 

commission opinion is based upon medical findings, that 

resolution is a factual finding based on credible evidence that 

binds this Court. Rose v. Red's Hitch & Trailer Serv., Inc., 11 

Va. App. 55, 60, 396 S.E.2d 392, 395 (1990). 

 Accordingly, we affirm the commission's award. 

 Affirmed.