COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Bumgardner and Lemons 

THE HAIR CUTTERY AND 

 ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1560-98-4 PER CURIAM 

 NOVEMBER 24, 1998 

WENDY V. SHANHOLTZ 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Edward H. Grove, III; Brault, Palmer, 

Grove, Zimmerman, White & Mims, on brief), 

for appellants. 

 (George W. Johnston, III; Kuykendall, 

Johnston, McKee & Butler, on brief), for 

appellee. 

 The Hair Cuttery and its insurer (hereinafter referred to as 

"employer") contend that the Workers' Compensation Commission 

("commission") erred in finding that (1) Wendy Shanholtz 

("claimant") proved that her disability beginning on November 10, 

1997 was causally related to her July 28, 1996 compensable injury 

by accident; and (2) employer was responsible for the cost of 

medical treatment rendered to claimant by Dr. Joseph Liberman. 

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. 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

Causation

 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). "The 

actual determination of causation is a factual finding that will 

not be disturbed on appeal if there is credible evidence to 

support the finding." Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Musick, 7 Va. App. 

684, 688, 376 S.E.2d 814, 817 (1989). 

 The commission held that "Dr. Liberman's medical records, 

when considered in their full context, clearly establish his 

opinion that the claimant's headaches are caused by the work 

accident." In so ruling, the commission found as follows: 

 [C]laimant did not suffer significant 

headaches prior to her work accident. 

Since that accident, she has suffered 

migraine headaches which have become 

progressively more severe. 

 The emergency room physician clearly 

related her headaches to the industrial 

accident. He stated that her headache "was 

most consistent with post concussive 

syndrome." Dr. Liberman, the treating 

neurologist, has expressed a similar 

opinion. Dr. Liberman took an accurate 

history, and diagnosed post-traumatic 

migraine headaches. The juxtaposition of 

that diagnosis to the accurate history 

makes clear Dr. Liberman's opinion that the 

headaches are causally related to the 

accident. When Dr. Liberman commented that 

"head injuries can precipitate migraine 

headaches," Dr. Liberman was not merely 

speculating that the accident might have 

caused the claimant's headaches, as the 

employer would argue. Instead, we find 

that Dr. Liberman was justifying his 

opinion of causation, by confirming that 

head injuries are a potential cause of 

migraine headaches. 
- 3 - 

 The medical records and opinions of the emergency room 

physician and Dr. Liberman provide credible evidence to support 

the commission's findings. Based upon that evidence, the 

commission could reasonably infer that claimant's headaches were 

causally related to her compensable injury by accident. "Where 

reasonable inferences may be drawn from the evidence in support 

of the commission's factual findings, they will not be disturbed 

by this Court on appeal." Hawks v. Henrico County Sch. Bd., 7 

Va. App. 398, 404, 374 S.E.2d 695, 698 (1988). Furthermore, 

"[i]n 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). 

Dr. Liberman's Medical Treatment

 As fact finder, the commission was entitled to accept 

claimant's testimony that employer did not cooperate in providing 

her with appropriate medical treatment. It is well settled that 

credibility determinations are within the fact finder's exclusive 

purview. See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Pierce, 5 Va. App. 

374, 381, 363 S.E.2d 433, 437 (1987). Moreover, where as here, 

the employer disputed the compensability of the claim, claimant 

was free to seek medical treatment of her own choosing. See

Bassett Burkeville Veneer v. Slaughter, 21 Va. App. 575, 578-79, 

466 S.E.2d 127, 129 (1996). 
- 4 - 

 Based upon this record, the commission did not err in ruling 

that Dr. Liberman was an authorized treating physician, and, 

therefore, employer was responsible for the cost of Dr. 

Liberman's treatment. 

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

Affirmed.