COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

GARY R. CHILDRESS 

v. Record No. 2817-96-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

GARY CHILDRESS TRUCKING JUNE 10, 1997 

AND 

NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (John A. Martin; Browning, Lamie & Sharp, on 

brief), for appellant. 

 (Monica L. Taylor; Melissa Amos Young; 

Gentry, Locke, Rakes & Moore, on brief), for 

appellees. 

 Gary R. Childress (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 

his employment on August 18, 1995. 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 party prevailing below. R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. 

Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). In 

PYA/Monarch and Reliance Ins. Co. v. Harris, 22 Va. App. 215, 468 

S.E.2d 688 (1996), we held: 

 In cases in which the claimant alleges an 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

injury by accident resulting from an 

employment-related risk, "[a] 'critical link' 

must exist between the conditions of the 

workplace and the injury in order for the 

injury to qualify as 'arising out of' the 

employment." In proving the "arising out of" 

prong of the compensability test, a claimant 

has the burden of showing that "'there is 

apparent to the rational mind upon 

consideration of all the circumstances, a 

causal connection between the conditions 

under which the work is required to be 

performed and the resulting injury.'" 

Id. at 221-22, 468 S.E.2d at 691.1 "Whether an injury arises out 

of the employment is a mixed question of law and fact and is 

reviewable by the appellate court." Plumb Rite Plumbing Serv. v. 

Barbour, 8 Va. App. 482, 483, 382 S.E.2d 305, 305 (1989). 

However, unless we conclude that claimant proved, as a matter of 

law, that his employment caused his injury, the commission's 

finding is binding and conclusive on appeal. Tomko v. Michael's 

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

 In denying claimant's application, the commission relied 

upon PYA/Monarch and Department of Transp. v. Mosebrook, 13 Va. 

App. 536, 413 S.E.2d 350 (1992), and found as follows: 

 We find no credible evidence in this case 

that the claimant's work or work environment 

caused or contributed to the condition that 

precipitated the truck accident, nor has he 

shown that it resulted from a personal 

idiopathic problem that was manifest as he 

drove the vehicle. Claimant's argument on 

review that the heat of the day and his work 

on the vehicle only shortly before the 

accident "demonstrates by preponderance that 

 

 1In an unexplained accident case, the claimant must also 

prove a causal connection between the employment and the 

accident. PYA/Monarch, 22 Va. App. at 224, 468 S.E.2d at 692. 
 3 

the claimant suffered from a heat related 

blackout" is mere speculation unsupported by 

medical evidence. This raises only a 

possible link, but evidence that shows a mere 

possibility that the accident resulted from a 

work related condition "does not constitute 

'credible evidence' to support an award of 

compensation." 

 The record supports the commission's findings. No medical 

evidence established to a reasonable degree of medical certainty 

that an idiopathic condition or a risk or hazard of claimant's 

employment caused him to become dizzy or to lose consciousness, 

resulting in his losing control of his truck and striking a tree. 

 Dr. Clinton Sutherland's discharge summary indicated that 

claimant suffered a "[n]ear syncope, unknown etiology, likely 

heat exhaustion." Drs. Matthew Wood, Jr. and Jim C. Brasfield 

did not render any opinion with respect to the cause of 

claimant's dizziness and resulting accident. Dr. Michael A. 

Passidomo noted his impression as "[s]yncope, etiology to be 

determined." 

 In the absence of any persuasive medical evidence 

establishing the cause of claimant's dizziness and/or accident, 

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

little probative weight to claimant's speculation that the heat 

and working on his truck shortly before the accident caused him 

to become dizzy and lose control of his truck. 

 Based upon this record, we hold that claimant failed to 

prove as a matter of law that his injury arose out of his 

employment. 
 4 

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

 Affirmed.