COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

ERIC PAUL PIKE 

v. Record No. 2614-95-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

SCOTT A. HUDSON MAY 14, 1996 

AND 

HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS 

 INSURANCE COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (William M. McKee, on brief), for appellant. 

 (Susan B. Potter; Vandeventer, Black, 

Meredith & Martin, on brief), for appellees. 

 Eric P. Pike (claimant) contends that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission (commission) erred in finding that he 

failed to prove he sustained an injury by accident arising out of 

and in the course of his employment on December 1, 1994. 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). "In 

order to carry his burden of proving an 'injury by accident,' a 

claimant must prove the cause of his injury was an identifiable 

incident or sudden precipitating event and that it resulted in an 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

obvious and 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 his burden of proof, the commission's finding is 

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

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

 The commission found that neither claimant's testimony nor 

the medical record established that he sustained a compensable 

injury by accident on December 1, 1994. As the basis for its 

decision, the commission stated the following: 

 [Claimant's] testimony that he sustained 

injury on December 1, 1994, when Matina 

dropped his end of a sheetrock panel, is not 

supported by the weight of the evidence. 

Matina testified that he could not recall the 

incident. While the claimant initially 

testified that he immediately informed Matina 

of his injury, he later changed his 

testimony. Matina stated that [claimant] 

never informed him of an injury on December 

1, 1994, and exhibited no indication of 

injury on that date. On December 5, 1994, 

Dr. Byrd reported that the claimant was 

experiencing neck and right arm pain for one 

month. There was no mention of an injury of 

December 1, 1994, until six weeks later 

during Dr. Mein's initial evaluation.1

 As fact finder, the commission was entitled to give more 

weight to the testimony of Matina and Hudson than to claimant's 

 

 1The commission also noted that Scott Hudson, claimant's 

supervisor, who worked in the same house on December 1, 1994 as 

claimant and Matina, testified that claimant did not report an 

injury to him on that date. Hudson first heard of the alleged 

injury on December 7, 1994, when claimant called him to obtain 

insurance information. Even then, claimant did not give Hudson 

any information concerning the alleged injury. 
 3 

testimony. Based upon the testimony of Matina and Hudson, the 

commission could conclude that claimant did not sustain a 

compensable injury by accident on December 1, 1994. Furthermore, 

the commission could infer from the history contained in Dr. 

Byrd's medical record that claimant had suffered from neck and 

arm pain before the alleged accident and, consequently, the 

injury predated the alleged accident. "Where reasonable 

inferences may be drawn from the evidence in support of the 

commission's factual findings, they will not be disturbed by this 

Court on appeal." Hawks v. Henrico County Sch. Bd., 7 Va. App. 

398, 404, 374 S.E.2d 695, 698 (1988). 

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

 Affirmed.