It happened very fast. Donald also stated that it was possible that he could have slipped and attempted to catch himself from falling. Based upon this record, the commission held that employer's evidence proved its affirmative defense of willful misconduct. The commission found that the most plausible explanation for the accident was that claimant intentionally reached into the machine while it was in operation, resulting in his injuries. The commission based this finding on the testimony of Pope and Dickens, as well as Dickens' written statement memorializing his telephone conversation with claimant.
Willful misconduct requires something more than negligence.
1 Va. App. Disregard of an express order, especially one made for the safety of the employees, usually constitutes willful misconduct. This Court is bound by the commission's factual findings if supported by credible evidence. James v. Capitol Steel Constr. To prevail on its willful misconduct defense, employer was not required to prove that the employee, with the safety rule in mind, purposefully determined to break it.