COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Fitzpatrick, Overton and Senior Judge Duff 

Argued by Teleconference 

ELECTRODYNE, INC., ET AL. 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 2374-96-4 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON 

 JUNE 10, 1997 

KIM HARRISON 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 Benjamin J. Trichilo (Trichilo, Bancroft, 

McGavin, Horvath & Judkins, P.C., on briefs), 

for appellants. 

 William A. Musto (Koonz, McKenney, Johnson, 

DePaolis & Lightfoot, P.C., on brief), for 

appellee. 

 Electrodyne, Inc. (employer) appeals from a decision of the 

Workers' Compensation Commission awarding Kim Harrison benefits 

for a work-related injury. Finding credible evidence in the 

record to support the commission's decision, we affirm. 

 The parties are fully conversant with the record in the 

cause, and because this memorandum opinion carries no 

precedential value, no recitation of the facts is necessary. 

 Guided by well established principles, we construe the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing 

below. See Crisp v. Brown's Tysons Corner Dodge, Inc., 1 Va. 

App. 503, 504, 339 S.E.2d 916, 916 (1986). The claimant bears 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

the burden of proving his injury arose out of his employment. 

See Marketing Profiles, Inc. v. Hill, 17 Va. App. 431, 433, 437 

S.E.2d 727, 729 (1993). The issue of whether an injury arose out 

of employment is a mixed question of law and fact, reviewable on 

appeal. See Southside Training Center v. Shell, 20 Va. App. 199, 

202, 455 S.E.2d 761, 763 (1995). However, the commission's 

underlying findings of fact will not be disturbed on review if 

credible evidence supports them. See Hill, 17 Va. App. at 435, 

437 S.E.2d at 729-30; Ogden Allied Aviation v. Shuck, 17 Va. App. 

53, 55, 434 S.E.2d 921, 922 (1993). 

 Employer first asserts that Harrison's condition was not the 

result of a work-related injury by accident. The evidence, 

however, supports the commission's conclusion that an accident 

occurred. Harrison's coworkers saw him looking at his foot that 

day, and he later recounted the event to others. The doctors' 

notes contain a mention of the accident. After reviewing all of 

the evidence and hearing testimony, the commission found that the 

accident did occur. This factual finding will be upheld on 

appeal because credible evidence supports it. 

 Employer next asserts that Harrison is not entitled to 

benefits after May 23, 1995 because Harrison did not originally 

request benefits for that period and then presented insufficient 

evidence to support disability after May 23. Although the 

initial claim did not request benefits after this date, by the 

time of the hearing the claim had been amended to include this 
- 3 - 

period as well and was stated on the record. After his surgery, 

Harrison could not stay on his feet and had to work sitting down, 

and for fewer days per week. The commission specifically found 

in its opinion that Harrison's "reduction in pay is based upon 

the employer's withdrawal of light duty employment." Finding 

credible evidence to support this determination, we affirm the 

award of temporary partial disability benefits after May 23, 

1995. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the commission is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.