COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Bumgardner and Lemons 

EUGENE KORANTENG 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1868-98-4 PER CURIAM 

 NOVEMBER 17, 1998 

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION AND 

 ALEXSIS RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Joseph T. Trapeni, Jr.; Trapeni, Romero & 

Morrison, on brief), for appellant. 

Appellant submitting on brief. 

 (Christopher M. Kite; Frith, Anderson & 

Peake, on brief), for appellees. Appellees 

submitting on brief. 

 Eugene Koranteng ("claimant") appeals a decision of the 

Workers' Compensation Commission ("commission") denying his claim 

for benefits seeking an award of temporary total disability 

benefits beginning January 29, 1997. Claimant contends that the 

commission erred in finding that he failed to prove that his left 

shoulder condition and resulting disability beginning January 29, 

1997 were causally related to his compensable November 12, 1995 

injury by accident. Finding no error, we affirm. 

 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). 

"General principles of workman's compensation law provide that 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

'[i]n an application for review of any award on the ground of 

change in condition, the burden is on the party alleging such 

change to prove his allegations by a preponderance of the 

evidence.'" Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Bateman, 4 Va. App. 

459, 464, 359 S.E.2d 98, 101 (1987) (quoting Pilot Freight 

Carriers, Inc. v. Reeves, 1 Va. App. 435, 438-39, 339 S.E.2d 570, 

572 (1986)). Unless we can say as a matter of law that 

claimant's evidence sustained his 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 denying claimant's application, the commission found as 

follows: 

 The evidence introduced by claimant 

establishes that he was injured while at work 

in November of 1995. It is also established 

that he was treated and apparently recovered. 

 Subsequently, on January 25, 1997 [sic], the 

claimant again had trouble with his shoulder 

while at work. However, there has been no 

showing by the claimant, establishing with 

the requisite degree of certainty, a causal 

connection between his condition on January 

25, 1997 [sic], and the initial injury. 

 Importantly, there is no statement in 

the medical documentation asserting a causal 

connection between the initial injury and the 

condition for which the claimant now seeks 

compensation. Dr. [William A.] Hanff's 

treatment notes, while establishing a 

similarity in the conditions, fail entirely 

to state a linking relationship. Those notes 

merely recite the relevant medical history. 

Although this analysis might suggest a 

connection, we find that it is insufficient 

to establish such a relationship to a 

"reasonable probability." We will not 

substitute our opinion regarding causation 
- 3 - 

when the treating physician does not provide 

some basis for that opinion. 

 The commission's findings are amply supported by the record. 

 No medical evidence established a causal connection between 

claimant's initial compensable shoulder injury and his symptoms 

and disability beginning on January 29, 1997. Moreover, it was 

undisputed that claimant had fully recovered from the initial 

injury and had returned to work without restrictions on October 

15, 1996. Based upon this record, we cannot say as a matter of 

law that claimant's evidence sustained his burden of proof. 

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

 Affirmed.