COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Annunziata, Frank and Senior Judge Bray 

Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia 

JAMES A. CREWS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1381-02-1 JUDGE ROSEMARIE ANNUNZIATA 

 FEBRUARY 19, 2003 

GATEWAY 2000 AND 

 SENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 Chanda W. Stepney (Rutter, Walsh, Mills & 

Rutter, L.L.P., on brief), for appellant. 

 Adam S. Rafal (Vandeventer Black L.L.P., on 

brief), for appellees. 

 James Crews, claimant, appeals from a decision of the 

Workers' Compensation Commission finding that his injury 

occurred in the course of his employment but that it did not 

arise out of his employment. For the reasons that follow, we 

affirm. 

Procedural Background

 The claimant filed a claim for benefits with the commission 

on November 23, 1999 and December 1, 1999, stating that he 

sustained an injury by accident to his lower back and right leg 

on April 3, 1998. Gateway 2000, employer, defended the claim on 

the ground that the injury did not arise out of or occur in the 

 

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

designated for publication.
- 2 - 

course of claimant's employment. On November 6, 2000, the 

deputy commissioner issued an opinion denying claimant's 

application for benefits. Claimant appealed to the full 

commission. 

 On April 27, 2001, the full commission issued an opinion 

that vacated the deputy commissioner's opinion and remanded for 

findings of fact and conclusions of law. The deputy 

commissioner issued a revised opinion, on September 6, 2001, and 

found that claimant's injury occurred in the course of his 

employment, but did not arise out of his employment. The deputy 

commissioner therefore denied claimant an award for benefits. 

Claimant appealed to the full commission and on April 25, 2002, 

the commission affirmed the deputy commissioner's decision. 

Claimant now appeals the full commission's decision.1

Facts

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

favorable to the employer, the party prevailing before the 

commission." Great Eastern Resort Corp. v. Gordon, 31 Va. App. 

608, 610, 525 S.E.2d 55, 56 (2000). So viewed, the evidence 

establishes that claimant began working for employer as a 

security officer in May 1996. On April 3, 1998, claimant 

sustained an injury by accident while participating in a 

company-sponsored fundraising car wash. Claimant had a sponge, 

 1

 Employer has not appealed the commission's finding that 

the injury occurred in the course of claimant's employment. 
- 3 - 

"someone would bring the car around, and [they] would soap it, 

wash it off . . . ." Claimant had been washing cars for 

approximately one hour, when he "bent over" to wash a hubcap and 

felt pain in his lower back. He had no problems "up to the 

point when [he] bent over to get the lower quadrant of the car." 

Claimant had not been working in a bent position for any 

particular period of time. 

 Claimant suffered an injury to his lower back. An MRI 

performed on claimant revealed a herniated disc, and he 

underwent laminectomy surgery. 

Analysis

 "In determining if an accident arises out of the 

employment, Virginia applies the 'actual risk' test, which 

'requires that the employment subject the employee to the 

particular danger that brought about his or her injury.'" 

Smithfield Packing Co. v. Carlton, 29 Va. App. 176, 181, 510 

S.E.2d 740, 742 (1999) (quoting Lipsey v. Case, 248 Va. 59, 61, 

445 S.E.2d 105, 106 (1994)). The injured employee must "show 

that the conditions of the workplace or some significant work 

related exertion caused the injury." Plumb Rite Plumbing Serv. 

v. Barbour, 8 Va. App. 482, 484, 382 S.E.2d 305, 306 (1985). 

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

by any work related risk or significant work related exertion, 

is not compensable.'" Ogden Allied Aviation v. Shuck, 18 

Va. App. 756, 758, 446 S.E.2d 898, 899 (1994) (en banc) (quoting 
- 4 - 

Barbour, 8 Va. App. at 284, 382 S.E.2d at 306). "The causative 

danger must be peculiar to the work, incidental to the character 

of the business, and not independent of the master-servant 

relationship." United Parcel Service v. Fetterman, 230 Va. 257, 

258-59, 336 S.E.2d 892, 893 (1985). "An injury is not 

compensable merely because it occurred during the performance of 

some employment duty if the act performed by the employee is not 

a causative hazard of the employment. Simple acts of walking, 

bending, or turning, without any other contributing 

environmental factors, are not risks of employment." Southside 

Virginia Training Ctr. v. Ellis, 33 Va. App. 824, 829, 537 

S.E.2d 35, 37 (2000). 

 In determining that claimant's injury was not caused by 

work-related exertion or working in an awkward position, the 

commission found that claimant's injury resulted from "merely 

bending over" to wash a hubcap, "without other contributing 

factors." Findings of fact made by the commission are 

conclusive and binding upon us, Ellis, 33 Va. App. at 827, 537 

S.E.2d at 36 (citing Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Robinson, 32 

Va. App. 1, 4-5, 526 S.E.2d 267, 268 (2000)), and will be upheld 

on appeal if supported by credible evidence. Goodyear Tire & 

Rubber Co. v. Harris, 35 Va. App. 162, 167, 543 S.E.2d 619, 621 

(2001) (citing James v. Capitol Steel Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 

512, 515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1989)). 
- 5 - 

 Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to 

employer, we find the commission's decision is supported by 

credible evidence. Claimant stated "I was bending over. . . . 

That's basically what happened. I bent over." He also stated 

he had "no problems up to the point where I bent over to get the 

lower quadrant of that car." 

 Claimant's contention that he was working in an awkward 

position when the injury occurred is not supported by the 

evidence. His testimony on this point was not consistent. 

Although he testified that he was "locked in a funny position" 

after he injured himself and that he injured himself when he 

"twisted" to reach the hubcap, he also made repeated assertions 

that he was "bending over" when the injury occurred. 

Specifically, he stated that he "bent over," "that thing 

popped," and he felt pain after he was "locked into a funny 

position." "That contrary evidence may be in the record is of 

no consequence if there is credible evidence to support the 

commission's findings." Robinson, 32 Va. App. at 4-5, 526 

S.E.2d at 268 (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

 We find credible evidence supports the commission's 

determination that claimant's injury did not arise from his 

employment. See, e.g., Barbour, 8 Va. App. at 483-84, 382 

S.E.2d at 306 (holding that claimant's injury was not 

compensable because he was merely "bending over" to pick up a 

piece of pipe when his injury occurred, and there was no 
- 6 - 

significant work-related risk or exertion); Ellis, 33 Va. App. 

at 829, 537 S.E.2d at 37 (holding that claimant's act of bending 

over to pick up a tray in a cafeteria "was neither unusual, 

awkward, nor something [he] was required to do on a repetitive 

basis"); Vint v. Alleghany Reg'l Hosp., 32 Va. App. 60, 63, 526 

S.E.2d 295, 297 (2000) (holding that claimant's injury did not 

arise out of her employment where she was merely bending over to 

pick up a trash can liner when she felt a sudden pain in her 

back); compare Shuck, 18 Va. App. at 758, 446 S.E.2d at 899 

(finding injury compensable where claimant sustained injury from 

repeatedly looking up to view fuel gauges, which was "an unusual 

or awkward position"); Grove v. Allied Signal, Inc., 15 Va. App. 

17, 22, 421 S.E.2d 32, 35 (1992) (awarding benefits where injury 

occurred while claimant worked in an awkward, crouched position, 

because reaching for a pipe while in the position was a peculiar 

hazard of his workplace); Brown v. Caporaletti, 12 Va. App. 242, 

402 S.E.2d 709 (1991) (finding claimant's injury compensable 

where it was sustained while trying to stand up after leaning 

over a furnace for approximately four to five minutes, on the 

ground that he was not simply bending over in a normal manner). 

 Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision. 

 Affirmed.