COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Bray and Fitzpatrick 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

OFFICE MAX, INC., ET AL. 

v. Record No. 1875-95-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY 

LINDA ANN MOREHOUSE APRIL 9, 1996 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 Joseph C. Veith, III (Montedonico, Hamilton & 

Altman, P.C., on briefs), for appellants. 

 David C. Jackson (William G. Shields & 

Associates, on brief), for appellee. 

 Office Max, Inc. (employer) appeals a decision of the 

Workers' Compensation Commission (commission) awarding temporary 

total disability benefits to Linda Ann Morehouse (claimant). 

Employer contends on appeal that the commission's finding of 

accidental injury is unsupported by credible evidence. We 

disagree and affirm the commission. 

 The parties are fully conversant with the record, and we 

recite only those facts necessary to a disposition of this 

appeal. 

 Guided by well established principles, we construe the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing 

below, claimant in this instance. Crisp v. Brown's Tysons Corner 

Dodge, Inc., 1 Va. App. 503, 504, 339 S.E.2d 916, 916 (1986). 

"If there is evidence, or reasonable inferences can be drawn from 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

the evidence, to support the Commission's findings, they will not 

be disturbed on review, even though there is evidence in the 

record to support a contrary finding." Morris v. Badger 

Powhatan/Figgie Int'l, Inc., 3 Va. App. 276, 279, 348 S.E.2d 876, 

877 (1986). 

 Claimant was employed as a "floor supervisor," primarily 

responsible for "stocking shelves." On September 27, 1994, after 

removing several boxes from shelves, claimant "pick[ed] up [a] 

box of computer paper, put it in [a] cart, and took it . . . to 

the cashier." Although claimant then experienced no pain, she 

recalled a "pull" in her "shoulder area," followed by "stiffness" 

and "serious pain" several hours later. Claimant was 

subsequently treated by Dr. Hallett H. Mathews, an orthopedist, 

for "mechanical right shoulder motion pain." 

 In denying claimant's application for benefits, the deputy 

commissioner concluded that she failed to prove "a single 

identifiable incident that produced an obvious sudden mechanical 

or structural change in the body." However, the full commission 

reversed, awarding claimant temporary total disability benefits. 

 An "injury by accident" requires "(1) an identifiable 

incident; (2) that occurs at some reasonably definite time; (3) 

an obvious sudden mechanical or structural change in the body; 

and (4) a causal connection between the incident and the bodily 

change." Chesterfield County v. Dunn, 9 Va. App. 475, 476, 389 

S.E.2d 180, 181 (1990). "[P]ain does not have to be 

contemporaneous with the accident to be an injury by accident." 
- 3 - 

Ratliff v. Rocco Farm Foods, 16 Va. App. 234, 239, 429 S.E.2d 39, 

42 (1993). "The actual determination of causation is a factual 

finding that will not be disturbed on appeal," if supported by 

credible evidence. Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Musick, 7 Va. App. 684, 

688, 376 S.E.2d 814, 817 (1989); see Code § 65.2-706. 

 Here, claimant testified that lifting the computer paper 

"pulled [her] shoulder area," and medical records relate 

"pick[ing] up box of computer paper" as relevant history of the 

disputed injury. Moreover, as the commission noted, "[t]here is 

no evidence of any shoulder problems prior to this 'pulling' 

incident," and the attendant circumstances were consistent with 

the medical findings. Such evidence, together with the entire 

record,1

 provides sufficient support for the commission's 

conclusion that claimant suffered a compensable injury by 

accident. 

 Employer's argument that Massie v. Firmstone, 134 Va. 450, 

114 S.E. 652 (1922), precludes benefits because claimant was 

unable to "identify a single incident" which precipitated her 

injury is without merit. Massie instructs that a party cannot 

"ask [the fact finder] to believe that he has not told the truth" 

in furtherance of his cause, id. at 462, 114 S.E. at 656, and, 

therefore, is "bound by his unequivocal testimony at trial." 

 

 1Employer correctly asserts that the "accident/injury 

report" and claimant's "affidavit" were not properly before the 

commission on review, and, consequently, not before this Court on 

appeal. See Rule 3.3 of the Workers' Compensation Commission. 

However, there is no indication that the commission considered 

such evidence in its disposition of the claim. 
- 4 - 

McMurphy Coal Co. v. Miller, 20 Va. App. 57, 59, 455 S.E.2d 265, 

266 (1995). Claimant's testimony simply described the 

circumstances of her injury, thereby providing evidence to be 

considered by the commission in assessing the claim. Under such 

circumstances, her testimony neither limited nor diminished other 

evidence in support of the claim. 

 Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the commission. 

 Affirmed.