COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Coleman and Bray 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

SENTARA HOME CARE SERVICES/ 

 SENTARA HEALTH SYSTEM AND 

 CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 CHIEF JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON 

v. Record No. 0246-96-1 JULY 2, 1996 

 

DAISY GARLAND 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 Colleen T. Dickerson (George J. Dancigers; 

Heilig, McKenry, Fraim & Lollar, P.C., on 

brief), for appellants. 

 Jeffrey R. Russell (Jeffrey R. Russell, P.C., 

on brief), for appellee. 

 Sentara Home Care Services appeals from the decision of the 

Workers' Compensation Commission awarding benefits to Daisy 

Garland. Sentara argues that Ms. Garland did not show that her 

injury arose out of her employment. We affirm the commission's 

decision. 

 At the time of her injury, Ms. Garland was a 55-year-old 

certified nursing aide employed by Sentara Home Care Services. 

She was assigned to care for Steven Glascow, a terminally ill 

AIDS patient who resided in a trailer park in Norfolk. Ms. 

Garland had been instructed by her supervisor to assist Mr. 

Glascow with any activities that he reasonably wished to perform. 

 As part of their regular routine, Ms. Garland and Mr. Glascow 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

walked to the Junior Market, across Newtown Road from the trailer 

park. 

 On October 16, 1992, Ms. Garland and Mr. Glascow walked to 

the Junior Market for ice, a bottled drink, and chips. Mr. 

Glascow was supposed to use a walker, but did not wish to do so 

on this occasion. Because he was so weak, Ms. Garland supported 

him by walking with her left arm linked through his, and held the 

grocery bags in her right arm. They reached the median strip, 

and traffic was heavy so they had to wait. As they began to step 

off the median, Mr. Glascow leaned as if he were going to fall. 

Ms. Garland put down her grocery bags and grabbed Mr. Glascow so 

he would not fall into the street. Then, as Ms. Garland 

testified, "When I caught Steven, me stepping down, I twisted my 

foot. My foot went the opposite way and my knee went one way." 

Ms. Garland testified that had she not caught Mr. Glascow, he 

would have fallen. 

 After the accident, Ms. Garland continued to Mr. Glascow's 

trailer and immediately began experiencing "charley horses on the 

back of my leg." After three days of increasing symptoms, she 

was taken to the emergency room by a friend, where she was 

diagnosed with a partial impaction fraction of her femur and 

cartilage tears in her knee. 

 The commission's decision that an accident arose out of the 

employment involves a mixed question of fact and law and is thus 

reviewable on appeal. Southside Virginia Training Center v. 
- 3 - 

Shell, 20 Va. App. 199, 202, 455 S.E.2d 761, 763 (1995). In 

reviewing the commission's factual findings, we view the record 

in the light most favorable to the claimant, as the prevailing 

party, and do not disturb the commission's findings so long as 

there is credible evidence to support them. Manassas Ice & Fuel 

Co. v. Farrar, 13 Va. App. 227, 229, 409 S.E.2d 824, 826 (1991). 

 To prove that the injury arose out of the employment, the 

claimant must show that a condition of the employment either 

caused or contributed to the fall. County of Chesterfield v. 

Johnson, 237 Va. 180, 184, 376 S.E.2d 73, 75 (1989). The 

claimant must demonstrate "a causal connection between the 

conditions under which the work is required to be performed and 

the resulting injury." Marketing Profiles, Inc. v. Hill, 17 Va. 

App. 431, 434, 437 S.E.2d 727, 729 (1993) (en banc) (quoting 

Bradshaw v. Aronovitch, 170 Va. 329, 335, 196 S.E. 684, 686 

(1938)). 

 The commission found that Ms. Garland's evidence established 

Glascow's unsteadiness as the cause of her fall. His 

unsteadiness required Ms. Garland to catch him as he stepped off 

the median, whereupon her "stepping down" caused her to "twist 

[her] foot" and her "foot went the opposite way and my knee went 

one way." There is no dispute that accompanying her patient to 

the store and assisting him in maintaining his balance-- 

activities that posed considerable physical risk--were within Ms. 

Garland's duties as a home care provider. The commission's 
- 4 - 

factual findings were supported by credible evidence, and the 

commission did not err in concluding that a condition of Ms. 

Garland's employment contributed to her injury. 

 Sentara argues that this is an "unexplained fall" case, and 

asks us to rely on Memorial Hospital of Martinsville v. Hairston, 

2 Va. App. 677, 347 S.E.2d 527 (1986), and other cases involving 

such falls. Sentara bases this argument on responses Ms. Garland 

gave to questions put to her by Sentara's counsel and the deputy 

commissioner. Taken in isolation, these statements suggest that 

Ms. Garland could not explain why she slipped and injured 

herself. However, taken as a whole Ms. Garland's testimony shows 

that she suffered her injury as the result of a difficult 

physical maneuver that she performed in order to protect her 

patient from harm. Thus, Ms. Garland explained her fall, and her 

explanation supports the commission's determination that her 

injury arose out of her employment. 

 In Memorial Hospital of Martinsville v. Hairston, a hospital 

employee who slipped on a flat, unobstructed floor in her 

employer's hospital was unable to explain the cause of her fall 

or to show that the cause was a risk of her employment. 

Hairston, 2 Va. App. at 682, 347 S.E.2d at 529. In Southside 

Virginia Training Center v. Shell, also cited by Sentara, the 

claimant was inattentive and slipped on stairs that posed no 

special risk of injury. Shell, 20 Va. App. at 203-04, 455 S.E.2d 

at 763-64. In both cases, we held that the claimant had not met 
- 5 - 

her burden of showing that the injury arose out of the 

employment. In contrast, Ms. Garland established that her injury 

was caused by the special conditions of her employment. 

 For these reasons, we affirm the award. 

 Affirmed.