COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

SAFELITE GLASS CORPORATION 

AND 

INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

v. Record No. 1864-95-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

RICKY LYNN CAMPBELL JANUARY 23, 1996 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' 

COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Robert M. McAdam; Wooten & Hart, on brief), for 

appellants. 

 (Rhonda L. Overstreet; Lumsden & Overstreet, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Safelite Glass Corporation and its insurer (hereinafter 

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

Compensation Commission erred in finding that (1) Ricky Lynn 

Campbell's ("claimant") testimony concerning his July 24, 1994 

injury by accident was credible; and (2) claimant's herniated 

disc at L4-L5 was caused by his July 24, 1994 injury by accident. 

 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. 

 I. Credibility

 Employer argues that the commission should have disregarded 

claimant's testimony on the grounds that (1) he described a 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

violent single truck accident, which is not corroborated by the 

physical evidence and witnesses' testimony; (2) he told Dr. 

Robert S. Widmeyer, his treating orthopedic surgeon, that he had 

not suffered from back pain before the July 27, 1994 accident, 

yet he testified that he suffered from back pain intermittently 

after his 1991 surgery and before July 27, 1994; and (3) he 

exaggerated his job requirements to Dr. Widmeyer by 

characterizing them as "heavy work," when he actually spent the 

majority of his work time driving a delivery truck. 

 In weighing claimant's credibility and in rendering its 

decision, the commission took these discrepancies into account. 

However, the commission disregarded these discrepancies in light 

of the opinion of Dr. James M. Vascik, the treating neurosurgeon, 

who opined that claimant would have at least been severely 

limited in his physical functions had the disc been herniated 

before the accident. There was no evidence that claimant's 

physical functions were severely limited before the accident. 

Although he complained of back pain before the accident, claimant 

was able to work and did not appear to be in distress. From this 

evidence, the commission could reasonably conclude that Dr. 

Vascik's opinion constituted the most persuasive evidence of when 

claimant herniated the disc. 

 "In determining whether credible evidence exists, the 

appellate court does not retry the facts, reweigh the 

preponderance of the evidence, or make its own determination of 
 3 

the credibility of the witnesses." Wagner Enters., Inc. v. 

Brooks, 12 Va. App. 890, 894, 407 S.E.2d 32, 35 (1991). It is 

well settled that credibility determinations are within the fact 

finder's exclusive purview. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. 

Pierce, 5 Va. App. 374, 381, 363 S.E.2d 433, 437 (1987). Based 

upon this record, we cannot say that the commission erred in 

finding that claimant was credible. 

 II. Causation

 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). "The 

actual determination of causation is a factual finding that will 

not be disturbed on appeal if there is credible evidence to 

support the finding." Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Musick, 7 Va. App. 

684, 688, 376 S.E.2d 814, 817 (1989). 

 In awarding compensation benefits to claimant, the 

commission found as follows: 

 This case turns, in part, on the extent 

of claimant's low back complaints on and 

before July 27, 1994, and prior to the 

automobile accident that evening. Two 

witnesses testified that he made extensive 

complaints of low back pain but that he was 

in no obvious distress. This evidence was 

not rebutted, as noted above. In this 

regard, we are impressed with Dr. Vascik's 

report that, if the claimant's disc had been 

herniated at that time, to the extent which 

was found on MRI after the accident, it would 

have been extremely difficult for him to 

function. We find this to be the persuasive 

evidence that the actual herniation was 

caused by the automobile accident. In so 

holding, we note that the claimant has 
 4 

minimized or denied back pain prior to the 

industrial accident and apparently going back 

to 1991 when he underwent back surgery. At 

the same time, he may have overstated the 

physical effort required by his work in an 

effort to minimize his preexisting back 

condition and certainly overstated the extent 

of the accident. However, in the final 

analysis, all of this notwithstanding, Dr. 

Vascik reported that the claimant would have 

at least been severely limited in his 

physical functions had the disc been 

herniated prior to the industrial accident. 

Finding this most persuasive, the Opinion 

appealed from is AFFIRMED . . . . 

 In its role as fact finder, the commission was entitled to 

weigh the evidence and to accept Dr. Vascik's opinions. 

Claimant's testimony, along with Dr. Vascik's opinions, 

constitute credible evidence to support the commission's 

decision. Based upon this evidence, the commission could 

reasonably infer that claimant's injury by accident on July 27, 

1994 caused his herniated disc and resulting disability. "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). 

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

 Affirmed.