Virginia Tree Harvesters, Inc. v. George W. Shelton, 62 Va. App. 524

On March 29, 2004, logger George W. Shelton was found unconscious in the cab of a skidder; a tree limb had entered the rear opening of the cab and struck him, causing serious injuries.
The skidder’s rear plexiglass window had been removed several days earlier after repeated scratching by swinging logs; grabber controls on the machine were malfunctioning so logs could swing side-to-side.
No one witnessed the moment of injury; Shelton had no memory of how the accident occurred. Co-worker Willie Smith and owner David Joslin both testified Shelton was operating the skidder and that a tree entered the cab.
Joslin gave varying statements: he reported the limb entered the cab while backing, but also testified the plexiglass was removed for visibility reasons and disputed that grabbers were malfunctioning; he later stated Shelton had a history of sleeping on the job.
The Workers’ Compensation Commission found the injury compensable, concluding circumstantial evidence linked the injury to a risk of Shelton’s employment; employer appealed, arguing the accident was unexplained and that the commission improperly discounted Joslin’s testimony.

Issue	Shelton's Argument	Employer's Argument	Held
Whether the injury "arose out of" employment (i.e., not an unexplained accident)	Circumstantial evidence (removed window, malfunctioning grabber, swinging logs, witnesses finding limb in cab) shows a work-related hazard caused the injury	Accident is unexplained; multiple possible causes (sleeping, operator error, distraction), so causal link to employment not proven	Affirmed: circumstantial evidence supported commission’s finding the injury arose from employment risk; not unexplained
Whether commission improperly rejected Joslin’s explanations about window removal and cause	Credible testimony from Smith and Joslin plus physical conditions support commission’s inferences; factfinder may weigh credibility	Commission should have accepted Joslin’s testimony that window removal was due to faded plexiglass and that claimant may have been at fault or asleep	Affirmed: commission entitled to assess probative weight and reject portions of Joslin’s testimony; its credibility determinations were supported by evidence

Blaustein v. Mitre, 36 Va. App. 344 (Va. Ct. App.) (mixed law–fact review; appellate deference to commission’s factual findings)
K & K Repairs & Constr. v. Endicott, 47 Va. App. 1 (Va. Ct. App.) (commission factual findings binding if supported by credible evidence)
Van Geuder v. Commonwealth, 192 Va. 548 (Va. 1952) (circumstantial evidence must move beyond conjecture to support finding)
Lysable Transp., Inc. v. Patton, 57 Va. App. 408 (Va. Ct. App.) (cannot sustain award where commission offers mutually exclusive explanations of accident)
PYA/Monarch v. Harris, 22 Va. App. 215 (Va. Ct. App.) (requirements for proving "arising out of" employment)
Liberty Mut. Ins. Corp. v. Herndon, 59 Va. App. 544 (Va. Ct. App.) (focus on relationship between injury and work environment; compensable where workplace exposed claimant to particular danger)
Beland, 43 Va. App. 352 (Va. Ct. App.) (use of circumstantial evidence to infer compensable workplace risk)