COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judge Annunziata and Senior Judge Duff 

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA 

v. Record No. 1777-95-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 JUDGE ROSEMARIE ANNUNZIATA 

D. ELOISE CLEPHAS MAY 14, 1996 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 Philip G. Sunderland (Amy Marschean; Office 

of the City Attorney, on briefs), for 

appellant. 

 John J. O'Donnell, Jr., for appellee. 

 This matter came before the commission on the application of 

appellant, City of Alexandria ("employer"), alleging appellee, 

D. Eloise Clephas ("claimant"), was able to return to her 

pre-injury employment. The deputy commissioner concluded that 

claimant could return to work and terminated her temporary total 

compensation. The full commission reversed, and employer 

appeals. Finding no error, we affirm. 

 I. 

 On June 3, 1991, claimant suffered a compensable injury by 

accident when she fell down a staircase while inspecting a 

building. Claimant injured her right shoulder and also suffered 

pain in her neck and lower back and numbness in her hands. On 

January 10, 1992, claimant underwent surgery to repair her right 

rotator cuff and right carpal tunnel. Claimant subsequently 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

developed Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy ("RSD") and remained 

unable to work. 

 On the day of her accident, claimant worked as an Existing 

Structures Inspector for employer and was responsible for 

enforcing city property standards by inspecting residential and 

commercial facilities. A job description completed in 1991 

indicates that inspectors had to crawl, climb ladders, push or 

pull boxes, and lift a maximum of fifteen pounds occasionally, 

estimated to be one-third of the time or less. The 1991 

description included tasks that inspectors might encounter on the 

job, but that the job did not necessarily require. 

 Claimant testified that, while the job required her to crawl 

on occasion, she never found it necessary to open a fire door or 

climb a ladder. Another inspector, Patricia Walker, testified 

that she had never had to crawl or climb a ladder, but that she 

found it necessary to open fire doors. Both Walker and the 

inspectors' supervisor, Thomas Flynn, testified that if an 

inspector faced a situation requiring the inspector to crawl, the 

inspector was instructed to seek assistance from other city 

personnel such as the Police, Fire Department, Animal Control, or 

New Construction Inspectors. Flynn testified that an inspector 

might have found it necessary to climb a stepladder to test a 

smoke alarm but stated that not all inspectors use the same 

techniques in performing their work. Walker testified that she 

uses a three-foot stick to test smoke alarms, for example. 
- 3 - 

Walker, Flynn, and claimant all testified that the job required 

writing and the use of a computer keyboard to input collected 

data. 

 In light of the 1991 job description, none of the four 

physicians who examined claimant from the date of her accident 

through the Spring of 1994 concluded that claimant had recovered 

sufficiently to return to full employment. One of those four, 

Dr. Roger Gisolfi, ordered a Functional Capacity Evaluation 

("FCE") and other tests in June 1994. 

 On July 25, 1994, employer prepared a new job description 

for claimant's position. The 1994 description eliminated any 

requirement regarding climbing ladders or crawling. It describes 

the typical inspector's day as requiring one and one-half hours 

of paperwork before beginning inspections, frequent movement in 

and out of a car, continuous walking in and out of buildings, and 

the use of a three-foot, one-pound stick to test safety devices 

during inspections. The 1994 description indicates that 

inspectors are to have property owners move furniture, and, where 

high or unsafe areas are to be inspected, inspectors are required 

to seek assistance from other city personnel such as the Fire 

Department, Police Department, Animal Control, or each other. 

The 1994 description describes standing, walking, and driving as 

the main physical activities associated with the job and notes 

that the job requires continuous "Fine motor - finger" activity 

and extensive writing. The 1994 description further indicates 
- 4 - 

that no climbing, crawling, or heavy pushing, exceeding thirty 

pounds, is required and that only rarely would an inspector have 

to push small furniture or a fire door. The 1994 description was 

compiled to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act, 

which requires that only the essential functions of a job be 

described. That description was based on an interview with the 

inspectors' supervisor and observations of an inspector at work. 

 Based on the 1994 job description and the findings of the 

1994 FCE, Dr. Gisolfi released claimant to return to full 

employment on August 17, 1994. On August 31, employer filed an 

application for hearing, seeking to terminate claimant's 

temporary total benefits. Subsequently, claimant was examined by 

Dr. David Kavjian and Dr. Hugo Davalos. Based on their 

examinations of claimant and their review of the results from the 

tests conducted in June 1994, both Drs. Kavjian and Davalos 

concluded that claimant remained limited in her functional 

capacity and could not return to full employment. It is unclear 

upon which job description Drs. Kavjian and Davalos based their 

opinions. 

 The full commission reversed the deputy commissioner's 

decision to terminate benefits, concluding that employer had not 

proven claimant capable of performing her pre-injury job. The 

commission found that all of the doctors agreed with the 

diagnosis of RSD and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. It also 

focused on Dr. Gisolfi's testimony that claimant could not get on 
- 5 - 

her hands and knees, climb ladders, or open heavy doors. The 

commission concluded that, although claimant's job description 

had been revised to eliminate those activities, employer failed 

to meet its burden of proving claimant able to make a full and 

unconditional return to all aspects of her pre-injury employment. 

 II. 

 Factual findings made by the commission are "conclusive and 

binding" upon this Court on review. Code § 65.2-706. A question 

raised by conflicting medical opinion is a question of fact. 

Celanese Fibers Co. v. Johnson, 229 Va. 117, 120, 326 S.E.2d 687, 

690 (1985); City of Norfolk v. Lillard, 15 Va. App. 424, 429, 424 

S.E.2d 243, 246 (1992). This Court on appeal does not judge the 

credibility of the witnesses or weigh the evidence. Johnson, 229 

Va. at 121, 326 S.E.2d at 690. "[I]t is our duty to determine 

whether credible evidence supports the commission's findings 

. . . and, if such evidence exists, to sustain the finding." Id.

(quoting Cook v. City of Waynesboro, 225 Va. 23, 31, 300 S.E.2d 

746, 750 (1983)); see also Stancill v. Ford Motor Co., 15 Va. 

App. 54, 58, 421 S.E.2d 872, 874 (1992). 

 The threshold test for compensability is whether the 

employee is able fully to perform the duties of pre-injury 

employment. Sky Chefs, Inc. v. Rogers, 222 Va. 800, 805, 284 

S.E.2d 605, 607 (1981); Johnson, 229 Va. at 120, 326 S.E.2d at 

690. Employer contends that the commission failed to apply the 

correct test in evaluating whether claimant was precluded from 
- 6 - 

performing her pre-injury job and erred in rejecting the revised 

job description. It contends the commission erroneously focused 

not on claimant's pre-injury duties as defined in the new job 

description but on the potential physical activities associated 

with the job as set forth in the earlier description. We assume, 

without deciding, that the revised job description, which 

eliminated climbing, crawling, and opening heavy fire doors, 

provided a reliable basis for determining claimant's pre-injury 

work requirements and that it was error to disregard it. 

Nonetheless, we find credible evidence in the record to support 

the commission's decision, notwithstanding its failure to 

consider the 1994 description. 

 Employer does not dispute that the job, according to either 

description, requires employees to use their hands for a variety 

of fine motor tasks, such as typing and extensive writing. The 

evidence in the case establishes, however, that claimant's use of 

her hands was limited and that she is not fully capable of 

performing such tasks. Medical evidence shows that claimant was 

limited to work which did not require "the repetitive use of the 

hands such as typing" and that claimant remained "very limited in 

her functional ability, particularly with respect to her hands." 

 Tests ordered by Dr. Gisolfi confirm that claimant was 

restricted in the use of her right hand and showed changes 

consistent with RSD in that hand. Dr. Gisolfi also notes that 

cold temperatures could affect claimant's RSD. Claimant herself 
- 7 - 

testified that she had difficulty writing, using a keyboard, and 

holding handrails, and that cold weather, in which the job 

required her to work, caused her great pain. 

 The existence of medical evidence in the case supporting 

employer's contention that claimant could return to work is not 

determinative. See Wagner Enters., Inc. v. Brooks, 12 Va. App. 

890, 894, 407 S.E.2d 32, 35 (1991). Where there is credible 

evidence to support the commission's findings, the award will be 

affirmed. Id. 

 Accordingly, the commission's decision is affirmed. 

Affirmed.