COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis 

MARYLAND & VIRGINIA MILK PRODUCE AND 

 LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2418-96-1 PER CURIAM 

 FEBRUARY 25, 1997 

RENA A. PARKER 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (William W. Nexsen; William W. Tunner; 

Stackhouse, Smith & Nexsen, on brief), for 

appellants. 

 (Richard W. Hudgins, on brief), for appellee. 

 Maryland & Virginia Milk Produce and its insurer 

(hereinafter collectively referred to as "employer") contend that 

the Workers' Compensation Commission erred in finding that Rena 

A. Parker proved that she sustained an injury by accident arising 

out of her employment on November 20, 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. 

 "Whether an injury arises out of the employment is a mixed 

question of law and fact and is reviewable by the appellate 

court." Plumb Rite Plumbing Serv. v. Barbour, 8 Va. App. 482, 

483, 382 S.E.2d 305, 305 (1989). Factual findings made by the 

commission will be upheld on appeal if supported by credible 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

evidence. James v. Capitol Steel Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 512, 

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

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

to the prevailing party below. R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. 

Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). So 

viewed, the evidence established that, on November 20, 1995, 

Parker was repairing a company truck she had painted the previous 

day. Four of Parker's co-workers assisted her by placing the 

truck bed onto the chassis. In order to insert bolts to hold the 

truck bed in place, Parker had to align the truck bed on the 

chassis. While in a squatting and bending position and while 

holding the 100 to 150 pound truck bed in her left hand, Parker 

moved, pulled, jerked, and lifted the truck bed in order to 

realign the bolts to the holes. It took several minutes to 

complete this task. Once Parker realigned the bolts, she stood 

up and felt back pain. Her back pain worsened during that day. 

 Histories of the incident contained in the medical records 

corroborated Parker's testimony. Parker's physicians diagnosed a 

herniated disc, which eventually required surgical treatment. 

 The commission found that Parker's employment caused her to 

assume "[t]he awkward physical movement of squatting, lifting the 

heavy truck bed and placing the bolts" and that those activities 

caused her back injury. These findings are supported by credible 

evidence, including Parker's testimony and the medical records. 

Therefore, they will not be disturbed on appeal. 
- 3 - 

 This case is controlled by our decision in Richard E. Brown, 

Inc. v. Caporaletti, 12 Va. App. 242, 402 S.E.2d 709 (1991). In 

Caporaletti, the claimant "was installing a 100 pound furnace 

. . . when he injured himself. Caporaletti lowered the furnace 

to its side and then leaned over it for approximately four to 

five minutes, cutting and fitting the furnace into place. He 

then attempted to stand up but was unable to do so." Id. at 243, 

402 S.E.2d at 710. In Caporaletti, we recognized that the 

gradual lowering of the 100 pound furnace and the accompanying 

work activities in a bent over position over the course of 

several minutes precipitated Caporaletti's back injury. Id. at 

244, 402 S.E.2d at 710. We held that the "identifiable incident 

of straightening up after working in a bent over position 

resulted in [the claimant's injury]." Id. We also held that 

Caporaletti's lowering of the 100 pound furnace and his working 

in a bent over position involved risks peculiar to the conditions 

of his employment. Id. at 245, 402 S.E.2d at 711. 

 In this case, as in Caporaletti, the evidence proved that 

the conditions of Parker's employment required that she maneuver 

a heavy item while in an awkward squatting/bending position over 

a period of several minutes. Upon rising from this position, she 

felt back pain. As in Caporaletti, Parker "was not simply 

bending over in a normal manner with no other contributing 

factors." Id. at 245, 402 S.E.2d at 711. Rather, Parker, like 

Caporaletti, maneuvered a heavy object in a bent over position 
- 4 - 

over the course of several minutes. Parker's work involved 

significant exertion while in an awkward position. Therefore, we 

agree with the commission's finding that a causal connection 

existed between the conditions under which employer required 

Parker to perform her work and her resulting back injury. 

 Employer cites Barbour and United Parcel Serv. v. Fetterman, 

230 Va. 257, 336 S.E.2d 892 (1985), in support of its argument. 

However, in Barbour and Fetterman, unlike this case, there was no 

evidence that the conditions of the claimants' workplace 

contributed to cause their injuries. Barbour simply bent over to 

pick up a piece of plastic pipe after working for one hour. 

Barbour, 8 Va. App. at 483, 382 S.E.2d at 305. Fetterman merely 

bent over to tie his shoe and felt acute back pain. Fetterman, 

230 Va. at 258, 336 S.E.2d at 892. 

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

 Affirmed.