COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis 

MILTON EARL OAKLEY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2928-99-3 PER CURIAM 

 MARCH 28, 2000 

YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC. 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Milton E. Oakley, pro se, on brief). 

 (S. Vernon Priddy, III; Sands, Anderson, 

 Marks & Miller, on brief), for appellee. 

 Milton E. Oakley contends that the Workers' Compensation 

Commission erred in finding that he failed to prove that he 

remained disabled after August 11, 1998 as a result of his 

compensable January 28, 1998 injury by accident. Upon reviewing 

the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this 

appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the 

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

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

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

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

Unless we can say as a matter of law that Oakley's evidence 

sustained his burden of proof, the commission's findings are 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code 

§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

binding and conclusive upon us. See Tomko v. Michael's 

Plastering. Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1970). 

 In affirming the deputy commissioner and ruling that Oakley 

failed to prove continuing disability after August 11, 1998, the 

commission held as follows: 

In a case involving a specialized condition 

such as this one, it was proper for the 

Deputy Commissioner to consider and give 

greater weight to the opinions of the 

specialists, Drs. [Steven M.] Koenig and 

[Dennis J.] Darcey. They believe [Oakley's] 

symptoms were not related to his exposure to 

fumes on January 28, 1998. Although it 

appears that [Oakley's] family physicians 

related [his] condition to his work exposure 

and kept him out of work, none of the other 

doctors did the same. Even Dr. [J. Gordon] 

Burch, upon whose opinion [Oakley] relies, 

found that [Oakley] could perform at least 

light duty work from January 1999. 

 Dr. Burch's opinion contained in a 

January 26, 1999, letter from [Oakley's] 

counsel, relating [Oakley's] condition to 

his work injury, is insufficient given his 

deposition testimony and other medical 

records. It is apparent from Dr. Burch's 

medical records that he is unclear as to the 

etiology of [Oakley's] symptoms. In his 

deposition, Dr. Burch admitted that while he 

was "52 to 55 percent confident" that 

[Oakley's] disorder was caused by the 

chemical exposure, he could not "say with 

precision" the mechanism of the injury and 

admitted that he was just "theorizing." The 

Deputy Commissioner correctly gave this 

opinion little weight. 

 In its role as fact finder, the commission was entitled to 

weigh the medical evidence, to accept the opinions of the 

specialists, Drs. Koenig and Darcey, and to reject Dr. Burch's 
- 3 - 

opinion. "Medical evidence is not necessarily conclusive but is 

subject to the commission's consideration and weighing." 

Hungerford Mechanical Corp. v. Hobson, 11 Va. App. 675, 677, 401 

S.E.2d 213, 215 (1991). 

 The commission's findings, based upon the opinions of Drs. 

Koenig and Darcey, are binding and conclusive upon us. Thus, we 

cannot say as a matter of law that Oakley's evidence sustained 

his burden of proving disability after August 11, 1998 causally 

related to his compensable injury by accident. See Tomko, 210 

Va. at 699, 173 S.E.2d at 835. 

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

Affirmed.