The Full Commission Decides Injury by Accident v. Repetitive Trauma
In Brian Piercy v. Woodbridge Glass Company, Inc., the claimant was a glazier who testified at the hearing that over the course of a four-hour period, he traveled dozens of times up and down several flights of stairs at a job while carrying objects. On one trip up the stairs, the claimant recalled carrying a 70–80-pound glass door, when he discovered that he was unable to raise his right foot. He also testified that while holding the door he experienced severe pain in his back and right leg.
The employer emphasized medical records where the claimant’s treating physician made frequent mention of “repetitive use of stairs,” and argued that the claimant’s injury resulted from repetitive trauma. The employer also pointed to the claimant’s pre-hearing discovery deposition, where he stated that he was unsure of when he injured his back and referred to multiple trips up and down stairs on the date of the occurrence. The claimant’s testimony at the hearing, however, sought to explain the medical evidence and his prior sworn testimony alleging that after “fifteen to twenty” trips, he was having “no problems with the steps,” but that “I…got half way up [with the 70–80-pound glass door] and just something happened.” In response to the Deputy Commissioner’s questions at the hearing, the claimant elaborated, “I couldn’t move my right foot with the pain—with the weight on top of me.”
Under the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act, an injury is compensable only if it is an “injury by accident” occurring at a “specific and identifiable” moment in time, accompanied by a “sudden structural or mechanical change” in the body. The alternative is an injury occurring from “repetitive motion.”
In Piercy, the Deputy Commissioner found the claimant’s testimony to be credible—and contrasted his post-injury symptoms with the complete lack of symptoms before lifting the door. Most importantly, the Deputy Commissioner recorded incredibly detailed observations of the claimant’s demeanor to justify the credibility finding. When a Deputy Commissioner makes such a detailed credibility finding, the Full Commission generally defers to that finding. The Full Commission did, in fact, hold that the claimant’s testimony, being credible, was sufficient to demonstrate an injury by accident despite medical records to the contrary.
In this case, the claimant did have a pre-existing chronic back issue, which led the employer to argue that his injury was caused by that condition. The Full Commission rejected this argument, writing that a chronic condition alone is no defense; the employer “takes the claimant as he finds him with all his pre-existing infirmities and weaknesses.” The Commission found that the employee had a chronic back condition that was materially aggravated by the injury by accident, resulting in several new issues, including right foot drop and a herniated disc. As a result, the Commission rejected this defense and upheld the Deputy Commissioner’s Award.