COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Elder and Bray 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY and 

 TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1119-96-3 JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY 

 DECEMBER 31, 1996 

SAMUEL R. TAYLOR 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 Martha White Medley (Daniel, Vaughan, Medley & 

Smitherman, P.C., on brief), for appellants. 

 No brief or argument for appellee. 

 Contending that Samuel R. Taylor (claimant) failed to prove 

that a knee injury arose from his employment, Goodyear Tire & 

Rubber Company and Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois 

(employer) appeal a decision of the Workers' Compensation 

Commission (commission) awarding claimant related medical 

benefits. Finding no error, we affirm the decision of the 

commission. 

 The parties are fully conversant with the record, and this 

memorandum opinion recites only those facts necessary to a 

disposition of the appeal. Guided by well established 

principles, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the party prevailing below, claimant in this instance. Crisp 

v. Brown's Tysons Corner Dodge, Inc., 1 Va. App. 503, 504, 339 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

S.E.2d 916, 916 (1986). "If there is evidence, or reasonable 

inferences can be drawn from the evidence, to support the 

Commission's findings, they will not be disturbed on review, even 

though there is evidence in the record to support a contrary 

finding." Morris v. Badger Powhatan/Figgie Int'l, Inc., 3 Va. 

App. 276, 279, 348 S.E.2d 876, 877 (1986); see Code § 65.2-706. 

 "In order to recover on a workers' compensation claim, a 

claimant must prove: (1) an injury by accident, (2) arising out 

of and (3) in the course of his employment." Kane Plumbing, Inc. 

v. Small, 7 Va. App. 132, 135, 371 S.E.2d 828, 830 (1988); see

Code § 65.2-101. "The phrase arising 'in the course of' refers 

to the time, place, and circumstances under which the accident 

occurred," while "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). 

 "The mere happening of an accident at the workplace, not 

caused by any work related risk or significant work related 

exertion, is not compensable." Plumb Rite Plumbing Serv. v. 

Barbour, 8 Va. App. 482, 484, 382 S.E.2d 305, 306 (1989). A 

claimant must establish "that the conditions of the workplace 

or . . . some significant work related exertion caused the 

injury." Id. Thus, "the arising out of test excludes 'an injury 

which comes from a hazard to which the employee would have been 

equally exposed apart from the employment. The causative danger 

must be peculiar to the work, incidental to the character of the 
- 3 - 

business, and not independent of the master-servant 

relationship.'" Johnson, 237 Va. at 183-84, 376 S.E.2d at 75 

(quoting United Parcel Service v. Fetterman, 230 Va. 257, 258-59, 

336 S.E.2d 892, 893 (1985)). 

 "The actual determination of causation is a factual finding 

that will not be disturbed on appeal," if supported by credible 

evidence. Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Musick, 7 Va. App. 684, 688, 376 

S.E.2d 814, 817 (1989); see Code § 65.2-706. However, "[w]hether 

an injury arises out of and in the course of employment is a 

mixed question of law and fact . . . , reviewable upon appeal." 

Jones v. Colonial Williamsburg Found., 8 Va. App. 432, 434, 382 

S.E.2d 300, 301 (1989). 

 Here, claimant's employment duties required that he change a 

"slug," which is located in the "bottom sidewall plate[]" of a 

tire mold and identifies the "cure" date of the tire. The plate 

was accessed through a "hole in the bottom," "real low," 

approximately five to six inches from the floor. It was, 

therefore, necessary for claimant to assume a "fairly awkward" 

position, "squat[ting] down" in an environment that was "slick" 

and "hot," unable to kneel because the floor was "hot." Claimant 

testified that employer had repeatedly instructed that he 

undertake the task by "bend[ing] [his] knees" rather than 

"bending at the hip and hurting the back." In awarding benefits, 

the commission concluded that 

 the claimant was required to engage in 

prolonged squatting in a hot, slick area, 

and to perform the task in a "fairly 
- 4 - 

awkward" position. After working in this 

manner for approximately one and a half 

hours, the claimant experienced a sudden, 

painful popping in his knee as he squatted 

down. . . . From this record we concur with 

the Deputy Commissioner that this injury 

arose out of the claimant's employment 

conditions. 

 The commission's factual findings are supported by the 

record, and establish an activity arising from a work-related 

risk sufficiently distinctive to render the resulting injury 

compensable. Compare Barbour, 8 Va. App. at 484, 382 S.E.2d at 

306 (injury not compensable because it "resulted from merely 

bending over," and not from any "significant work related 

exertion [or condition]") with Kane Plumbing, 7 Va. App. at 

137-38, 371 S.E.2d at 831-32 (injury compensable when employee 

struck a rock, and turned unexpectedly while digging in awkward 

position), and Richard E. Brown, Inc. v. Caporaletti, 12 Va. App. 

242, 245, 402 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1991) (injury compensable when 

suffered while lowering 100-pound furnace and performing related 

tasks). 

 Accordingly, the commission correctly determined that 

claimant's injury arose from his employment, and we affirm the 

award. 

 Affirmed.