COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

ANHEUSER BUSCH COMPANY, INC. 

AND 

PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

v. Record No. 2254-95-1 MARCH 26, 1996 

 

JOHN G. STEVENS, JR. 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' 

COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (William C. Walker; Bradford C. Jacob; 

Taylor & Walker, on brief), for appellants. 

 No brief for appellee. 

 Anheuser Busch Company, Inc. and its insurer (hereinafter 

collectively referred to as "employer") contend that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission erred in finding that John G. Stevens 

("claimant") sustained an injury by accident arising out of his 

employment on July 6, 1994. Upon reviewing the record and 

employer's brief, we find 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 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). A 

finding by the commission that an injury did or did not arise out 

of the employment is a mixed finding of law and fact and is 
 2 

properly reviewable on appeal. Jones v. Colonial Williamsburg 

Found., 8 Va. App. 432, 434, 382 S.E.2d 300, 301 (1989). The 

phrase "arising out of" refers to the origin or cause of the 

injury. County of Chesterfield v. Johnson, 237 Va. 180, 183, 376 

S.E.2d 73, 74 (1989). To prevail, claimant must "show that the 

conditions of the workplace . . . caused the injury." Plumb Rite 

Plumbing Serv. v. Barbour, 8 Va. App. 482, 484, 382 S.E.2d 305, 

306 (1989). 

 In ruling that claimant's injuries arose out of his 

employment, the commission found as follows: 

 The claimant testified that he walked through 

an area of the plant where the concrete 

floors had just been hosed down. This area 

adjoined the double doors which exited onto 

the platform where the claimant slipped. As 

he approached the top step, both feet slipped 

out from under him, and he slid down four 

concrete steps with worn steel caps. 

Although the company nurse did not detect any 

wetness on his shoe, she did not deny that 

the floor area leading to the platform had 

just been hosed down and was wet. 

 Claimant's testimony constitutes credible evidence to 

support the commission's factual findings. Based upon these 

findings, the commission could reasonably conclude that 

 in all likelihood the slip was related to the 

fact that the claimant had to walk across a 

wet concrete floor to reach the steps . . . 

[and] that the worn steel caps may have 

contributed to the fall, and that the extent 

of the injury was added to by the nature of 

the steps, which were concrete and steel. 

The commission, in its role as fact finder, was entitled to give 

more weight to claimant's testimony than to the testimony of the 
 3 

company nurse. 

 "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). Here, the 

evidence supported an inference that conditions of the work 

place, i.e., the wet concrete floor and the worn steel caps, 

caused claimant's injuries. 

 Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision. 

 Affirmed.