COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

BRIDGESTONE FIRESTONE, INC. 

AND 

INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE 

 STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2065-95-4 PER CURIAM 

 FEBRUARY 27, 1996 

MICHAEL J. DOERNBERG 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' 

COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Ralph L. Whitt, Jr.; Jennifer G. Marwitz; 

Sands, Anderson, Marks & Miller, on brief), 

for appellants. 

 (Wesley G. Marshall, on brief), for appellee. 

 Bridgestone Firestone, Inc. and its insurer (hereinafter 

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

Compensation Commission erred in finding that Michael J. 

Doernberg (claimant) sustained an injury by accident arising out 

of and in the course of his employment on April 6, 1994, rather 

than a change in condition related to a July 1, 1989 injury. 

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. 

 Claimant, a store manager for employer, testified that on 

April 6, 1994, his job duties required that he supervise 

personnel, perform car repairs, and close tire sales. On that 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

date, he leaned into a customer's car trunk in order to remove a 

tire. As he moved the tire, he felt a sharp pain in his left 

lower back and buttocks. He reported this accident to his 

employer's workers' compensation/safety manager and sought 

medical treatment from Dr. Samuel D. Jessee, an orthopedic 

surgeon. 

 Claimant admitted that he had suffered a previous back 

injury in 1989. However, in April 1994, claimant was not under 

any active medical care for his back nor was he under any 

physical restrictions. Claimant testified that he felt fine 

prior to the April 6, 1994 injury, and he played golf and 

basketball on occasion. During the several months before 

April 6, 1994, claimant did not miss any time from work related 

to back pain. Between 1993 and April 6, 1994, claimant performed 

his job duties without any problems and did not suffer from daily 

or even weekly pain. After April 6, 1994, claimant's back pain 

prevented him from lifting and performing physical labor at work. 

 Following the 1989 back injury, Dr. Jessee diagnosed 

claimant as suffering from an L4-L5 herniated disc. Dr. Jessee 

prescribed epidural steroid injections, the last one administered 

on June 1, 1992. No evidence showed that claimant underwent any 

medical treatment for his back between June 2, 1992 and April 7, 

1994. On April 8, 1994, Dr. Jessee noted that claimant had done 

well and had not had back symptoms until the April 6, 1994 

accident. Dr. Jessee diagnosed a persistent herniated disc and 
 3 

prescribed lumbar steroid injections. A September 14, 1994 MRI 

revealed a new objective finding, consisting of a disc herniation 

at L5-S1 and a herniated disc at L4-L5. Thereafter, Dr. K. Singh 

Sahni, a neurosurgeon, recommended that claimant undergo surgery. 

 Based upon this record, the commission held that claimant 

proved he sustained a new injury by accident arising out of and 

in the course of his employment on April 6, 1994. In so ruling, 

the commission found as follows: 

 [Claimant] testified that he felt back pain 

while moving a tire at work on April 6, 1994. 

 This is consistent with both the history 

elicited by his treating physician and the 

recorded statement given to the carrier. The 

MRI performed in September 1994 revealed the 

presence of a herniated disc at L5-S1 which 

was not appreciated in the earlier studies. 

 While the claimant testified that he had 

experienced intermittent back pain since his 

original injury in 1989, this pain was not 

severe enough to require medical attention. 

However, subsequent to his injury on April 6, 

1994, he had required repeated epidural 

steroid injections in order to alleviate his 

pain. Further, Dr. Sahni recommended 

surgical intervention, which was not an 

option considered prior to April 6, 1994. 

 "In order to carry his burden of proving 'an injury by 

accident,' a claimant must prove that the cause of his injury was 

an identifiable incident or sudden precipitating event and that 

it resulted in an obvious sudden mechanical or structural change 

in the body." Morris v. Morris, 238 Va. 578, 598, 385 S.E.2d 

858, 865 (1989). 

 [A]ggravation of an old injury or a 

preexisting condition is not, per se, 
 4 

tantamount to a "new injury." To be a "new 

injury" the incident giving rise to the 

aggravation must, in itself, satisfy each of 

the requirements for an "injury by accident 

arising out of . . . the employment." 

First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Gryder, 9 Va. App. 60, 63, 

383 S.E.2d 755, 757-58 (1989). On appeal, factual findings made 

by the commission will be upheld when supported by credible 

evidence. James v. Capitol Steel Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 512, 

515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1989). 

 Claimant's testimony, coupled with the medical records of 

Drs. Jessee and Sahni, constitute credible evidence to support 

the commission's finding that claimant experienced an 

identifiable incident on April 6, 1994 resulting in a sudden 

mechanical or structural change in his lower back. 

 Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision. 

 Affirmed.