COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Humphreys and Retired Judge Duff*

THE SERVICE MASTER COMPANY and 

 ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0370-01-3 PER CURIAM 

 JUNE 19, 2001 

PHYLLIS LYNN (CRUMMETT) CAMPBELL 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Steven H. Theisen; Midkiff, Muncie & Ross, 

P.C., on brief), for appellant. 

 (George L. Townsend; Brian J. McNamara; 

Chandler, Franklin & O'Bryan, on brief), for 

appellee. 

 

 * Retired Judge Charles H. Duff took part in the 

consideration of this case by designation pursuant to Code 

§ 17.1-400(D). 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 

 The Service Master Company and its insurer (hereinafter 

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

Compensation Commission erred in finding that (1) Phyllis Lynn 

(Crummett) Campbell proved that she sustained a compensable 

change-in-condition causally related to her May 26, 1995 injury 

by accident; and (2) Campbell's change-in-condition application 

was governed by the two-year statute of limitations contained in 

Code § 65.2-708(A), rather than the one-year statute of 

limitations contained in Code § 65.2-501. 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. See Rule 5A:27. 

 On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the prevailing party below. See R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. 

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

will uphold the commission's factual findings if they are 

supported by credible evidence. James v. Capitol Steel Constr. 

Co., 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1989). 

 In ruling that Campbell proved she sustained a compensable 

change-in-condition and that she filed a timely application, the 

commission found as follows: 

 The record . . . clearly reflects that 

[Campbell's] condition has remained painful 

and a problem for her since the accident in 

1995. Nevertheless, [she] was able to 

successfully manage her pain, and continued 

to work at full work duties before, during 

and after her award of permanency in 1998. 

While [she] testified that her painful 

condition has not improved over the 

intervening years, we also note her 

testimony that her condition became worse in 

2000, thereby causing her to seek out first 

emergency care, and then additional pain 

management treatment once the pain became 

unbearable. In the opinion of [her] 

treating specialist[, Dr. Victor C. Lee], 

her pain is both disabling and causally 

related to the compensable accident. We 

find that these facts reflect a 

deterioration of [Campbell's] condition 

since the date she was awarded permanency 

benefits in 1998, and the two year, "change 

in condition" statute of limitation applies. 

- 2 -
 We also find that [Campbell] has proven 

that her change in condition is causally 

related to her compensable accident. Both 

Dr. Lee and Dr. [Christopher] Heck have 

opined that [Campbell's] ongoing problems 

with her left shoulder are causally related 

to the compensable accident. We recognize 

that Dr. [David S.] Witmer treated 

[Campbell] for a longer period of time. 

However, he released her from his care in 

August 1999, and only examined her on one 

occasion after that date. In his IME 

report, Dr. Witmer recorded only that 

[Campbell's] subjective complaints of pain 

could not be objectively verified from an 

"orthopedic" standpoint. Nevertheless, he 

suggested that a psychological or 

psychiatric approach to treatment might be 

beneficial, and he did not specifically 

opine that her condition was not causally 

related to her accident. 

 "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 

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

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

role as fact finder, the commission was entitled to weigh the 

medical evidence. See Penley v. Island Creek Coal Co., 8 Va. 

App. 310, 318, 381 S.E.2d 231, 236 (1989) (holding that 

"[q]uestions raised by conflicting medical opinions must be 

decided by the commission"). The commission accepted the 

opinions of Drs. Lee and Heck, while rejecting Dr. Witmer's 

opinions. The medical records and opinions of Drs. Lee and 

Heck, coupled with the January 6, 2000 emergency room reports, 

establish that Campbell's left shoulder pain had worsened and 

- 3 -
that she had suffered an "[a]cute exacerbation of chronic 

shoulder pain." This evidence constitutes credible evidence to 

support the commission's finding that Campbell's left shoulder 

condition deteriorated after the 1998 permanency award and 

resulted in a compensable change-in-condition. 

 On October 20, 1998, Campbell was last paid permanent 

partial disability benefits related to her May 26, 1995 injury 

by accident. The commission ruled that the two-year statute of 

limitations contained in Code § 65.2-708(A) applied to 

Campbell's March 28, 2000 change-in-condition application, 

rather than the one-year statute of limitations contained in 

Code § 65.2-501. We affirm that ruling. Credible evidence 

supports the commission's decision that Campbell sustained a 

compensable change-in-condition after the date she was awarded 

permanency benefits. Accordingly, the commission did not err in 

finding that the March 28, 2000 change-in-condition application 

was timely filed. See Armstrong Furniture v. Elder, 4 Va. App. 

238, 244, 356 S.E.2d 614, 617 (1987) (holding that "the two year 

limitation period of Code § [65.2-708] applies to filing an 

application for additional workers' compensation benefits 

pursuant to a change in condition as defined by Code 

§ [65.2-101]"). 

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

Affirmed.

- 4 -