COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Bray and Overton 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

OLD HOUSE SPECIALISTS, INC. and 

 COMMONWEALTH CONTRACTORS GROUP 

 SELF-INSURANCE ASSOCIATION 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0259-97-1 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON 

 SEPTEMBER 23, 1997 

DAVID ROBERT COLEMAN 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 Carter B. S. Furr (McGuire, Woods, Battle and 

Boothe, L.L.P., on brief), for appellants. 

 No brief or argument for appellee. 

 Old House Specialists, Inc. (employer) appeals from a 

decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission awarding David 

Coleman (claimant) benefits for a work-related injury. Employer 

contends that the commission's finding that claimant suffered a 

compensable injury by accident was erroneous.1 Because we hold 

that the finding was not supported by credible evidence, we 

reverse. 

 The parties are fully conversant with the record in the 

cause, and because this memorandum opinion carries no 

precedential value, no recitation of the facts is necessary. 

 

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

designated for publication. 

 1Employer also argues that under the Massie doctrine, 

claimant should not have been able to "rise above his own 

testimony." Because the case is fully disposed by our holding on 

the first issue, we decline to address this second issue. 
 2 

 Employer claims that claimant's injury was not the result of 

an "'identifiable incident or sudden precipitating event,'" 

Morris v. Morris, 238 Va. 578, 588, 385 S.E.2d 858, 864 (1989) 

(quoting The Lane Co., Inc. v. Saunders, 229 Va. 196, 199, 326 

S.E.2d 702, 703-04 (1985)), as the commission found, but instead 

was the result of the repetitive, cumulative trauma of pulling 

the starter cord of a portable generator twenty to thirty times 

each morning for several weeks.2 After careful review of the 

record, we are compelled to agree. 

 "[T]he issue whether a worker has suffered an impairment 

that constitutes a compensable disease is a mixed question of law 

and fact and, hence, a Commission finding on the question is not 

conclusive and binding upon this Court but is properly subject to 

judicial review." Stenrich Group v. Jemmott, 251 Va. 186, 192, 

467 S.E.2d 795, 798 (1996). The evidence clearly indicates that 

the claimant suffered pain and numbness in his hand for several 

weeks prior to December 29, 1995, the date to which the claimant 

attributes his injury. 

 The commission found that claimant's injury was compensable 

as an accident which aggravated a pre-existing condition. It 

based this finding almost exclusively on statements taken from 

 

 2Employer's counsel has submitted three unpublished opinions 

from this Court in support of its position. "Unpublished 

memorandum opinions of this Court are not to be cited or relied 

upon as precedent except for the purpose of establishing res 

judicata, estoppel or the law of the case." Grajales v. 

Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 1, 2 n.1, 353 S.E.2d 789, 790 n.1 

(1987). 
 3 

the medical records to the effect that claimant was sore for 

weeks but "pulling on [a] generator 3 days ago, worsened it." 

Yet he had also told his doctors that there was "[n]o one 

incident or injury" that caused the pain. He also stated at the 

hearing that his condition was a "gradual thing" made worse "over 

a period of that time." Finally, claimant testified that Dr. 

Fedro did not think that "pulling on the generator that one time 

caused this incident." The record is silent as to the opinions 

of claimant's other physicians, Dr. McDermott and Dr. Neff. 

While we acknowledge that the evidence is somewhat conflicting, 

we hold as a matter of law that the facts are insufficient to 

support the commission's finding that the injury was the 

aggravation of a pre-existing condition and not, as we conclude, 

the effect of repetitive, cumulative trauma. See Merillat 

Indus., Inc. v. Parks, 246 Va. 429, 430, 436 S.E.2d 600, 600 

(1993) (holding that a possibly torn left arm rotator cuff that 

was the result of cumulative trauma was not compensable). 

 Accordingly, the decision of the commission is reversed and 

dismissed. 

 Reversed and dismissed.