COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

ANNE GRIFFIN MILLER 

v. Record No. 2627-95-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

COUNTY OF JAMES CITY MAY 14, 1996 

AND 

CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' 

COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Arnold H. Abrons; Abrons, Fasanaro & 

Sceviour, on brief), for appellant. 

 (Robert A. Rapaport; Knight, Dudley, Clarke 

& Dolph, on brief), for appellee. 

 Anne Griffin Miller ("claimant") contends that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission erred in finding that she failed to prove 

that her reactive airways disease was caused by her employment. 

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. 

 A claimant must prove the existence of an occupational 

disease by a preponderance of the evidence. Virginia Dep't of 

State Police v. Talbert, 1 Va. App. 250, 253, 337 S.E.2d 307, 308 

(1985). "Whether a disease is causally related to the employment 

and not causally related to other factors . . . is a finding of 

fact." Island Creek Coal Co. v. Breeding, 6 Va. App. 1, 12, 365 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

S.E.2d 782, 788 (1988). Unless we can say as a matter of law 

that claimant's evidence sustained her burden of proof, the 

commission's findings are binding and conclusive upon us. Tomko 

v. Michael's Plastering Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 833, 

835 (1970). 

 An occupational disease is one "arising out of and in the 

course of employment." Code § 65.2-400(A). "A disease shall be 

deemed to arise out of the employment" when the evidence 

establishes six elements. Code § 65.2-400(B). Elements (1) and 

(6) require evidence showing "[a] direct causal connection 

between the conditions under which work is performed and the 

occupational disease" and that the disease "had its origin in a 

risk connected with the employment and flowed from that source as 

a natural consequence . . . ." Code § 65.2-400(B)(1) and (B)(6). 

 The commission found that claimant failed to establish a 

compensable occupational disease under the requirements of Code 

§ 65.2-400. 

 The record is devoid of any medical opinions to support 

claimant's assertion that her employment caused her condition. 

At best, Dr. Thomas L. Munzel, claimant's treating pulmonary 

specialist, opined that her employment aggravated her reactive 

airways disease. A disease that is merely aggravated by the 

employment does not establish causation and is not an 

occupational disease. Ashland Oil Co. v. Bean, 225 Va. 1, 3-4, 

300 S.E.2d 739, 740 (1983). 
 3 

 Based upon the absence of any persuasive medical evidence 

that claimant's work environment caused her restrictive airways 

disease, claimant did not prove as a matter of law a compensable 

occupational disease pursuant to the requirements of Code 

§ 65.2-400. Thus, the commission did not err in denying her 

application based upon a finding that she did not prove that her 

condition was caused by her employment or that it had its origins 

in a work connected risk. 

 Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision. 

 Affirmed.