COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Bumg ardner, McClanahan and Senior Judge Coleman Argued at Salem, Virginia

TRI TUBE, INC. AND GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 1879-03-3 JUDGERUDOLPH BU MGARDNER, III FEBRUARY 3, 2004 DELORES A. OWENS

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION Daniel E. Lynch (John T. Cornett, Jr.; Williams & Lynch, on brief), for appellants. D. Edward Wise, Jr. (Arrington, Schelin & Herrell, P.C., on brief), for appellee.

Tri Tube, Inc. and its insurer contend th e Workers’ Compensation Commission erred in finding Delores A. Owens sustained an injury by accident. The employer argues that the worker was not going to the dumpster to discard scraps wh en she fell and that she suffered from prior right shoulder pain. We affirm because cred ible evidence supports the commission’s decision. “Decisions of the commission as to questions of fact, if supporte d by credible evidence, are conclusive and binding on this Court.” Manassas Ice & Fuel Co. v. Farrar, 13 Va. App. 227, 229, 409 S.E.2d 824, 826 (1991). We view the eviden ce in the light most favorable to the worker. Id. The worker operated a bending mach ine making parts for hot water tanks. Her shift ended at 11:00 p.m., at which time she was to clean her work area. At approximately 10:50 p.m. on a Friday, the worker took pieces of scraps to the outside dumpster. The area around the dumpster was dark, and it was snow ing and cold. The worker thre w the scraps in the dumpster.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1- 413, this opinion is not designated for publication.- 2 - As she turned to run back inside, her “foot went down to the right, ” and she fell on her right shoulder. The worker maintained she must have gone off the concrete pavement and into the gravel because she could not see well. Upon re-entering the building, the worker cleaned herself off, and reported her fall to several co-workers. The worker reported the incident to her empl oyer after she went home. The Employer’s First Accident Report stated, “employ ee was taking out scraps when she stepped into a hole and fell onto her right s houlder, resulting in a strain.” The worker saw Dr. Lee the following M onday and told him she fell while “running outside at work.” He diagnoseda right shoulder contusion and pr escribed physical therapy. The physical therapist recorded that the worker land ed on her right shoulder when she fell at work. He noted she had a “mild right shoulder sp rain/strain with positi ve signs of symptom exaggeration and inappropriate il lness behavior.” After a wee k, the swelling went down and the contusions disappeared. Dr. Lee kept her out of work due to continued shoulder weakness and her inability to raise it above 100 degrees. Anorthopedist eventually prescribed rotator cuff
surgery. The worker filed a claim for benefits more than a year later. The deputy commissioner denied the worker’s claim finding she had not satisfied her burden of proof. The full commission reversed and awarded benefits w ith one commissioner dissenting. The employer contends the worker’s testimony was not credible for three reasons. First, the worker was not going to discard scraps but to start her car in violation of company policy. Second, the worker did not fall at all. Third, the wo rker had shoulder problems before the date of the alleged fall. The employer stresses evidence that supports each of its contentions. Two co-workers heard the worker say that she was going to star t her car and saw her leave with her car keys in her hand. The two did not see her carrying any sc raps. One witness said the worker’s clothes- 3 - were neither muddy nor dirty though the parking lo t was nasty and another worker came to work with mud on her shoes. Another witness saw the worker “dust her clothes off,” but did not observe any dirt on her clothes. Finally, three witnesses testified the worker regularly complained about pain in her shoulders, and one recalled a complain t about neck pain. The commission accepted the worker’s version of how she was injured. The medical reports corroborated her testimony. The commi ssion evaluated the evidence of the worker’s prior complaints, and it limited the disability aw ard to the one week she suffered from swelling and contusions. “The fact th at contrary evidence may be found in the record is of no consequence if credible eviden ce supports the commission’s finding.” Id. at 229, 409 S.E.2d at 826. “It was the Commission’s duty to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of the witnesses. Here, the Commission believed [the worker] and we must uphold that decision, even though a strong argument is made that the othe r witnesses were more credible.” Russell Loungewear v. Gray, 2 Va. App. 90, 93, 341 S.E.2d 824, 825 (1986). Credible evidence supports the commission’ s decision. Accordingly, we affirm. Affirmed.