COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Annunziata, Agee and Senior Judge Coleman 

RITA F. SHIFFLETT 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2816-01-2 PER CURIAM 

 APRIL 16, 2002 

CONAGRA FROZEN FOODS 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Norman Lamson, on briefs), for appellant. 

 (Kerri Borchardt Taylor; Morin & Barkley, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Rita F. Shifflett (claimant) contends the Workers' 

Compensation Commission erred in finding she failed to prove (1) 

that she sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in 

the course of her employment on November 17, 1998, resulting in 

neck problems; and (2) that her May 1999 and October 1999 neck 

problems were causally related to the November 17, 1998 injury 

by accident. Upon reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, 

we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we 

summarily affirm the commission's decision. Rule 5A:27. 

 "In order to carry [the] burden of proving an 'injury by 

accident,' a claimant must prove that the cause of [the] injury 

was an identifiable incident or sudden precipitating event and 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

that it resulted in an obvious sudden mechanical or structural 

change in the body." Morris v. Morris, 238 Va. 578, 589, 385 

S.E.2d 858, 865 (1989). Unless we can say as a matter of law 

that claimant's evidence sustained her burden of proof, the 

commission's findings are binding and conclusive upon us. See

Tomko v. Michael's Plastering Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 

833, 835 (1970). 

 The full commission affirmed the deputy commissioner's 

finding that claimant failed to prove that she sustained an 

injury by accident on November 17, 1998, but rather that her 

neck strain was the result of non-compensable cumulative trauma. 

In so ruling, the deputy commissioner found as follows: 

 The claimant asserts that on [the] 

morning [of November 17, 1998] she was 

lifting heavy vegetable boxes and throwing 

them down to break the frozen contents for 

eventual use in food production lines. At 

her first visit to the employer's nursing 

station, she reported a pinch in her neck 

one week prior, no trauma or precipitating 

factors, and she had mentioned the neck 

pinch one week prior, being advised to use 

heat. At the visit that day with 

Dr. [Charles] Thurber, he also mentioned no 

history of injury, and that she related the 

pinching as far back as 1996, which was 

exacerbated with heavy lifting. The note 

from her subsequent first visit with 

Spectrum Therapy also refers to her lifting 

objects overhead when she was injured from 

which she felt difficulties from the 

activity for "several weeks." This 

evaluation, which occurred three days after 

the alleged injury negates, as do the other 

medical reports, a specific singular 

precipitating event to which the claimant 

testified. It is contrary to normal 
- 3 - 

credibility to have three consistent medical 

reports denying a specific traumatic event 

when a claimant expresses that the contrary 

occurred. 

 We are not persuaded that the claimant, 

who from the medical records has had a 

history of neck condition, sustained a new 

injury on November 17, 1998, as opposed to a 

flare-up of her continuing problems as a 

result of repetitive lifting of heavy 

objects. 

 Based upon the medical histories, the commission, as fact 

finder, was entitled to reject claimant's testimony regarding 

the happening of a specific identifiable incident on November 

17, 1998 resulting in a neck injury. It is well settled that 

credibility determinations are within the fact finder's 

exclusive purview. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Pierce, 5 Va. 

App. 374, 381, 363 S.E.2d 433, 437 (1987). Accordingly, we 

cannot find as a matter of law that claimant's evidence 

sustained her burden of proving that a specific indentifiable 

incident occurring at work on November 17, 1998 resulted in her 

neck condition. 

 Because our ruling on this issue disposes of this appeal, 

we need not address the remaining issue raised by claimant. 

Therefore, we affirm the commission's decision. 

Affirmed.