COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

VALERIE M. MEREDITH 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0564-97-4 PER CURIAM 

 JULY 15, 1997 

SAFEWAY, INC. 

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Valerie M. Meredith, pro se, on brief). 

 (Stephen J. Price; O'Connell & O'Connell, 

on brief), for appellee. 

 Valerie Meredith (claimant) contends that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission (commission) erred in finding that she 

failed to prove she sustained an injury by accident arising out 

of and in the course of her employment on December 31, 1995. 

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. 

 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). "In 

order to carry [her] burden of proving an "injury by accident' a 

claimant must prove that the cause of [her] injury was an 

identifiable incident or sudden precipitating event and that it 

resulted in an obvious sudden mechanical or structural change in 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

the body." Morris v. Morris, 238 Va. 578, 589, 385 S.E.2d 858, 

865 (1989). 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. See Tomko v. Michael's 

Plastering Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1970). 

 In holding that claimant failed to prove that her alleged 

accident constituted an identifiable incident or sudden 

precipitating event which resulted in an obvious sudden 

mechanical or structural change in her body, the commission made 

the following findings: 

 After a careful comparison of the 

claimant's testimony given at the hearing on 

this matter with the statement which she made 

to the claims adjuster at a time more 

contemporaneous with the alleged injury, we 

conclude that the claimant did not provide 

specific information regarding the alleged 

injury by accident. From the statements 

given, ascertaining whether the claimant 

alleged an injury while moving items between 

the double belts or whether she alleged an 

injury while lifting items from the belt into 

the basket was difficult. The claimant also 

seemed confused over the size of the bottles, 

the number of bottles, and the number of 

bags, raising questions about the accuracy of 

her account of the incident. The claimant's 

initial statement was that the pain came on 

gradually. However, by the time of the 

hearing she had changed the account to refer 

to a more specific incident involving lifting 

either two or three bottles of soda in a bag. 

 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). Based upon the inconsistencies between claimant's 
 3 

hearing testimony and her recorded statement, the commission was 

entitled to conclude that claimant's testimony was not credible. 

 Accordingly, we cannot find as a matter of law that claimant 

carried her burden of proving that she sustained an injury by 

accident arising out of and in the course of her employment on 

December 31, 1995. Claimant's remaining claims are also without 

merit. She alleges that the commissioner failed to consider the 

medical reports and the ongoing treatment of the claimant. The 

record does not support this claim. She also contends the 

commissioner failed to consider a witness' affidavit. The 

affidavit was not made part of the record at the commissioner's 

hearing and was properly not considered. 

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

 Affirmed.