COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

DYNATRAN 

AND 

PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY 

v. Record No. 2541-94-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

ROSE MARIE COOKE JUNE 13, 1995 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA 

WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Lisa Frisina Clement, on brief), for appellants. 

 (Geoffrey R. McDonald; Laura Large Geller; McDonald & 

Snesil, on brief), for appellee. 

 Dynatran and its insurer (hereinafter collectively referred 

to as "employer") contend that the Workers' Compensation 

Commission erred in finding that it failed to prove that Rose 

Marie Cooke's claim was barred due to her willful misconduct. 

Specifically, the employer contends that the commission erred in 

finding that it failed to prove that Cooke's failure to wear a 

back belt was the proximate cause of her back injury. 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. 

 

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

designated for publication. 

 On December 7, 1993, Cooke was working as a laborer for the 

employer. She testified that, on that date, she lifted a heavy 

vise, weighing between fifty and seventy-five pounds, and carried 
 2 

it down stairs. She felt pain in her back as she reached the 

last part of the stairs. She admitted that, at the time of her 

injury, she was not wearing a back belt that had been previously 

provided to her by the employer. She also admitted that she knew 

it was the employer's policy that all employees were required to 

wear the back belt whenever they performed heavy lifting. 

 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). 

"Factual findings of the commission are binding on appeal." 

Spruill v. C.W. Wright Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 330, 332, 381 

S.E.2d 359, 360 (1989). "'The questions of whether or not a 

claimant has been guilty of willful misconduct and whether such 

misconduct was a proximate cause of the employee's accident are 

issues of fact.'" Uninsured Employer's Fund v. Keppel, 1 Va. 

App. 162, 165, 335 S.E.2d 851, 852 (1985). 

 The dispute in this case is whether Cooke's failure to wear 

the back belt was the proximate cause of her injury. Cooke's 

treating physicians, Drs. Bruce Miller and William White, did not 

render any opinion on this point. 

 Dr. Charles Bonner, who evaluated Cooke on June 3, 1994 at 

her request, related that Cooke's injury did not occur while 

lifting, but rather it occurred when she twisted her body while 

carrying a heavy object. Thus, Dr. Bonner opined that the back 

belt would have had no effect on Cooke's injury because it was 
 3 

not designed to control the type of movement that caused Cooke's 

injury. Dr. Jerome Smith reported that the injury could have 

occurred even with the use of the back belt. 

 The opinions of Dr. Mayo Friedlis and Dr. Laura Staton were 

submitted to the commission by the employer. Dr. Friedlis opined 

that the use of the back belt by Cooke "could have prevented 

[her] back injury" and "would likely have prevented her injury." 

 Dr. Staton opined that "[t]he use of the [back] belt could have 

prevented this injury." 

 In light of this conflicting medical evidence, we cannot say 

as matter of law that the commission erred in finding that the 

employer did not meet its burden to establish that Cooke's 

failure to wear the back belt was the proximate cause of her 

injury. "Questions raised by conflicting medical opinions must 

be decided by the commission." Penley v. Island Creek Coal Co., 

8 Va. App. 310, 318, 381 S.E.2d 231, 236 (1989). 

 Since our rulings on the issues raised by the employer 

dispose of this appeal, we will not address Cooke's second 

question presented. 

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

 Affirmed.