COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

ROGER FRANKLIN FORREST 

v. Record No. 1091-95-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

BALL METAL CONTAINER GROUP OCTOBER 24, 1995 

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Richard B. Donaldson, Jr.; Kevin W. Grierson; Jones, 

Blechman, Woltz & Kelly, on brief), for appellant. 

 (John M. Oakey, Jr.; Jill M. Misage; McGuire, Woods, 

Battle & Boothe, on brief), for appellee. 

 Roger Franklin Forrest contends that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission erred in finding that Ball Container 

Group ("employer") offered suitable selective employment to him, 

which he unjustifiably refused. 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. Rule 5A:27. 

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

to the prevailing party below. R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. 

Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). "To 

support a finding of refusal of selective employment 'the record 

must disclose (1) a bona fide job offer suitable to the 

employee's capacity; (2) [a job offer that was] procured for the 

employee by the employer; and (3) an unjustified refusal by the 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

employee to accept the job.'" James v. Capitol Steel Constr. 

Co., 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 489 (1989)(quoting 

Ellerson v. W.O. Grubb Steel Erection Co., 1 Va. App. 97, 98, 335 

S.E.2d 379, 380 (1985)). The commission's factual findings will 

be upheld on appeal if supported by credible evidence. James, 8 

Va. App. at 515, 382 S.E.2d at 488. 

 In granting employer's application, the commission found 

that Joint Exhibit 1, the videotape, accurately depicted the 

claimant's pre-injury palletizer operator job as it existed when 

offered to claimant by employer. As fact finder, the commission 

was entitled to reject claimant's testimony disputing the 

accuracy of the videotape and his assertion that the requirements 

of the job fell outside of the lifting, bending, and twisting 

restrictions placed upon him by Dr. Mark A. Rubenstein. The 

commission was also entitled to accept the testimony of 

employer's witnesses who stated that claimant did not voice any 

complaints concerning his physical condition while performing the 

job. 

 Dr. Rubenstein released claimant to return to work on the 

basis of the videotape. In addition, Dr. Rubenstein reviewed 

claimant's notes reflecting his actual experience upon returning 

to the job in late March 1994 for a four-day period. Dr. 

Rubenstein did not find any objective evidence from which to 

conclude that claimant's return to the job adversely affected his 

physical condition in any manner. 
 3 

 The videotape and Dr. Rubenstein's opinions constitute 

credible evidence to support the commission's holding that, by 

leaving his position with employer, claimant unjustifiably 

refused selective employment. "The fact that there is contrary 

evidence in the record is of no consequence if there is credible 

evidence to support the commission's finding." Wagner Enters., 

Inc. v. Brooks, 12 Va. App. 890, 894, 407 S.E.2d 32, 35 (1991). 

 Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision. 

 Affirmed.