JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER.
William D. Birchfield (Birchfield) appeals from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission (commission) denying him benefits for an injury he alleges he sustained on October 3, 1991 while in the course of his employment as a cement truck driver for Dubrook Concrete (employer). Birchfield contends that the commission erred in finding that his testimony was not credible and that he failed to prove an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Birchfield also contends that the commission erred in failing to grant his petition to reopen the record. Finding no error, we affirm the commission's decision.
I.
Birchfield testified that at approximately 9:30 p.m. on October 3, 1991, he finished pouring concrete, got out of his truck to get his ticket signed, fell into a hole and slid down an embankment, causing his left leg to bend underneath him, injuring his left knee.
Four witnesses testified on the employer's behalf and stated that several months prior to the alleged accident Birchfield had been arrested for driving while intoxicated, that he expected to lose his commercial driver's license and, in turn, his job as a cement truck driver. Birchfield repeatedly and unsuccessfully sought alternative, non-driving work from his employer and even asked to be laid off. His requests were refused. Birchfield became increasingly desperate over his future employment and told manager Rick Huckleby two or three days before the alleged accident, "well if you don't help me then I will just hurt my back. I'll take care of it myself." Moreover, Jamie Lee Bode, a co-worker, testified to a conversation on the day of the alleged accident concerning the absence of any job openings in the concrete placement department, to which Birchfield replied, "well don't worry about it, I'll take care of it."
The commission found that the employer provided sufficient evidence from which the deputy commissioner could reasonably conclude that Birchfield's testimony concerning the accidental nature of his knee injury was not credible.
We must review 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). Factual findings of the commission will not be disturbed on appeal, if based upon credible evidence. Hercules, Inc. v. Gunther, 13 Va. App. 357, 361, 412 S.E.2d 185, 187 (1991).
It is well-settled that credibility determinations are within the fact-finder's exclusive purview. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co. v. Pierce, 5 Va. App. 374, 381, 363 S.E.2d 433, 437 (1987). In this case, the issue of whether Birchfield sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment was entirely dependent upon the credibility of the witnesses. The commission's credibility determination is supported by the testimony of the employer's witnesses. The commission, in considering the testimony of all the witnesses, found Birchfield's evidence insufficient to establish his claim. Thus, we cannot say, as a matter of law, that Birchfield sustained his burden of proof.
II.
The commission did not err in refusing to grant Birchfield's petition to vacate and reopen the record. The testimony of Darrell Kyle (Kyle) was given before the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) in July 1992, two months prior to his September 1992 testimony before the commission. Accordingly, any possible conflict in Kyle's testimony was known to Birchfield, who was present with his counsel at the VEC hearing.
Thus, Birchfield had the opportunity to ask substantive questions of Kyle regarding the entirety of his testimony given before the VEC, but he failed to do so. This evidence was known to Birchfield and, with due diligence, he could have introduced it into the record at the time of the hearing. Therefore, it does not qualify as after-discovered evidence. See Mundy v. Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 461, 483, 390 S.E.2d 525, 537,aff'd en banc, 399 S.E.2d 29 (1990), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 127 (1991). Moreover, a comparison of Kyle's VEC testimony with the questions asked of him at the workers' compensation hearing reveals that there is no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation which would have warranted vacating the decision.
For the reasons stated, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.