PER CURIAM
Mohinder Singh (claimant) appeals from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission, reversing the deputy commissioner, and denying him benefits for disability occurring after April 20, 1992. Claimant contends that the commission erred in finding that he failed to prove that his disability from work after April 20, 1992 was related to his industrial accident of April 15, 1992. Finding no error, we affirm the commission's decision.
The commission also found that claimant sustained an injury by accident on April 15, 1992 arising out of and in the course of his employment. This finding is not challenged on appeal. Thus, we need not address it.
During 1992, claimant was employed by Pizza Hut, Inc. (employer) as an assistant manager. In his off hours, he visited a spa, lifted weights, and ran four miles per day.
On February 10, 1992, claimant sought medical treatment from Dr. Ebrahim Navid for back pain of a nine-day duration. On February 28, 1992, Dr. Navid noted that claimant was doing much better and permitted him to return to spa activity, with a restriction on lifting weights. On April 2, 1992, Dr. Navid noted that claimant complained of lumbosacral pain which began after he stood for two hours at work. Dr. Navid indicated that claimant was still running four miles per day. On April 16, 1992, claimant reported to Dr. Navid that he had increased lumbosacral pain on April 15, 1992 at work while lifting containers of Pepsi. Dr. Navid noted "recurring back pain with no radiation to the legs." He did note that claimant had spasms in the paravertebral muscles. X-rays and an MRI of claimant's back were within normal limits. An April 16, 1992 work slip completed by Dr. Navid indicated that claimant could return to work on April 20, 1992. On April 20, 1992, Dr. Navid noted that claimant was no longer having back spasms and that his straight leg raising test was negative. On that date, Dr. Navid also noted that he could not determine why claimant was suffering from recurring back pain in the lumbar area. On April 24, 1992, claimant still had pain and Dr. Navid referred him to a neurosurgeon, Dr. Stanislow K. Toczek.
On April 29, 1992, Dr. Toczek noted a history of two and one-half months of back pain with no radiation to the legs. He noted that the April 15, 1992 incident caused an increase in claimant's pain. However, in making his diagnosis, Dr. Toczek stated that claimant suffered from "back pain of unknown origin." He also noted that claimant's spina bifida at L5 may contribute to his back pain and that he might be suffering from a bulging disc. The MRI ruled out a bulging disc.
After April 20, 1992, Dr. Navid issued various out of work slips for claimant. In a July 28, 1992 Attending Physician's Report, Dr. Navid recited the date of claimant's injury as April 15, 1992 and stated that claimant had not suffered from his back condition prior to that date.
The full commission, in reversing the deputy commissioner, found "that the employee has demonstrated an aggravation of a pre-existing condition which resulted in temporary spasm for a period of several days and that the record contains no persuasive evidence which attributes the employee's continuing condition and disability beyond April 20, 1992 to the industrial accident of April 15, 1992."
On appellate review we must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below. R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). The commission's determination as to whether a claimant's disability is causally related to a compensable condition is a finding of fact, which is binding on review if supported by credible evidence. Volvo White Truck Corp. v. Hedge, 1 Va. App. 195, 199, 336 S.E.2d 903, 906 (1985). Unless claimant proved as a matter of law that he continued to be disabled after April 20, 1992 as a result of his April 15, 1992 industrial accident, the commission's findings are binding and conclusive upon us. Tomko v. Michael's Plastering Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1970). Credible evidence supports the commission's findings and we will not disturb them on appeal.
The medical records of Drs. Navid and Toczek detailing claimant's treatment and prior back injury support the commission's findings. On April 16, 1992, Dr. Navid noted that claimant was suffering from back spasms. However, on April 20, 1992, Dr. Navid reported that claimant was no longer having spasms and straight leg raising was negative. He released claimant to return to work on April 20, 1992 and stated that he did not know why claimant was suffering from recurring back pain. On April 29, 1992, Dr. Toczek reported that claimant's back condition was of unknown origin, even though he was aware of the April 15, 1992 incident. In its role as fact finder, the commission was entitled to discount Dr. Navid's July 28, 1992 Attending Physician's Report in that it contained statements regarding claimant's prior history which were in conflict with Dr. Navid's office notes and records. "Medical evidence is not necessarily conclusive, but is subject to the commission's consideration and weighing." Hungerford Mechanical Corp. v. Hobson, 11 Va. App. 675, 677, 401 S.E.2d 213, 214 (1991). The burden was on claimant to establish disability relating to the incident of April 15. In light of Dr. Navid's vacillation, claimant's prior injury, and the commission's questions concerning claimant's credibility, we cannot say that the commission erred in finding that claimant failed to meet that burden.
Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.