Issue link: http://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/83215
Virginia holds that the link of causation between injuries must directly connect the original injury with the additional injury for which compensation is sought. For example, if a claimant with a knee injury fell due to his knee giving way, and the fall resulted in an injury to his left arm, that would be compensable. If, however, the same left arm injury causes him to overuse his right arm, which in turn is injured from the overuse, this would not be a compensable consequence of the original work injury. The Commission will hold that causation is too remote, and the right arm injury is not the employer's responsibility. This analysis applies both to gradually and suddenly incurred injuries. It also applies to injuries from a disease process, although we find that the Commission appears more reluctant to accept the argument that a given disease is a consequence of a compensable consequence. In considering this issue with either a suddenly incurred or gradually incurred injury, it may be helpful to consider the conditions using an "A-B- C" analysis. Under this view, if the initial injury ("A") causes a new injury ("B), then "B" is compensable. If, however, "B" causes a third injury ("C"), the chain of causation is seen as too remote, and the employer is not responsible for the "C" injury.