COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Bray and Fitzpatrick 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

PLASTIC PRODUCTS, INC. AND 

 LMI INSURANCE CO. 

v. Record No. 1963-95-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 JUDGE JOHANNA L. FITZPATRICK 

MILDRED CLARK BULLOCK APRIL 16, 1996 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 

 S. Vernon Priddy, III (Ralph L. Whitt, Jr.; 

Jennifer G. Marwitz; Sands, Anderson, Marks & 

Miller, on brief), for appellants. 

 No brief or argument for appellee. 

 In this workers' compensation case, Plastic Products, Inc. 

and its insurer, LMI Insurance Co. (collectively referred to as 

employer), appeal the commission's decision awarding benefits to 

Mildred C. Bullock (claimant). Employer argues that the 

commission erred in finding that claimant's fall arose out of her 

employment. For the reasons that follow, we hold that claimant's 

fall was a noncompensable, unexplained accident and reverse the 

commission's decision. 

 Claimant worked for employer as a supervisor in the cutting 

department, shipping and receiving department, and the sewing 

room. On July 15, 1994, claimant was going downstairs from the 

sewing room to the cutting department when she fell. Claimant 

testified that the stairs are steep and dark, and that there was 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17.116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

no light bulb in the receptacle. Claimant wears bifocals, and 

her glasses slipped just before she fell. She does not know why 

she fell, but speculated that either the glasses slipping caused 

her fall or she looked out of her bifocals wrong. Claimant does 

not know whether anything on the steps could have caused her 

fall. 

 When she fell, claimant injured her right hip and pelvis. 

She sought benefits from August 11, 1994 and continuing. The 

commission awarded benefits to claimant and found that: (1) the 

dark, steep stairs "represent[ed] a condition peculiar to the 

workplace," and (2) the missing light bulb and height of the 

stairs were added risks of claimant's employment. 

 Employer argues that the commission erred in awarding 

benefits to claimant because she failed to prove that her fall 

"arose out of" her employment. 

 The law is well-established that, "[t]o qualify for workers' 

compensation benefits, an employee's injuries must result from an 

event 'arising out of' and 'in the course of' the employment." 

Pinkerton's, Inc. v. Helmes, 242 Va. 378, 380, 410 S.E.2d 646, 

647 (1991). This Court recently addressed the "arising out of" 

prong in the context of an unexplained fall case. PYA/Monarch v. 

Harris, ___ Va. App. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (1996). In formulating 

the "arising out of" analysis applicable in unexplained fall 

cases, the Court determined that it was "bound by the rationale 

of Pinkerton's that an unexplained fall is not compensable '[i]n 
 3 

the absence of a showing that the [injury] 'arose out of' the 

employment'" and concluded that the "commission improperly 

extended the increased effects analysis properly used in 

idiopathic fall cases to an unexplained fall situation." Id. at 

___, ___ S.E.2d at ___ (quoting Pinkerton's, 242 Va. at 381, 410 

S.E.2d at 648). Thus, "in an unexplained fall case in Virginia, 

a claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the 

fall 'arose out of' the employment by establishing a causal 

connection between his or her employment and the fall." ___ Va. 

App. at ___, ___ S.E.2d at ___. 

 In the instant case, the commission erred in finding a 

causal connection between claimant's fall and her employment and 

in applying the increased effects analysis to a non-idiopathic 

fall. Claimant's evidence established that she did not know what 

caused her to fall down the stairs. Although she speculated that 

she fell when her glasses slipped or when she looked out of her 

bifocals wrong, she could not relate her fall to an employmentrelated condition. No evidence in the record showed that the 

stairs were defective or that a foreign substance was on the 

stairs. Claimant's testimony that the stairs were dark and steep 

is insufficient to prove that the darkness or steepness of the 

stairs actually caused her fall. Additionally, the commission 

improperly utilized the increased effects analysis applicable in 

idiopathic fall cases. The record contained no evidence that an 

idiopathic condition of claimant caused her fall. Because 
 4 

claimant's fall was clearly an unexplained accident, and she 

failed to show the requisite causal connection between her 

employment and her fall, the commission erred in awarding 

benefits. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the commission is reversed. 

 Reversed.