JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON
Jacquelyn Wray Harper seeks reversal of a Workers' Compensation Commission decision terminating her benefits. She maintains that no credible evidence supports the finding that she was able to return to work. We disagree and affirm.
A finding of fact made by the commission is conclusive and binding upon this Court on appeal. "A question raised by conflicting medical opinion is a question of fact."Commonwealth v. Powell, 2 Va. App. 712, 714, 347 S.E.2d 532, 533 (1986); see also A.G. Van Metre, Jr., Inc. v. Gandy, 7 Va. App. 207, 215, 372 S.E.2d 198, 203 (1988). Here, there were conflicting opinions concerning whether appellant was able to return to work. The commission based its decision upon the opinion of Dr. George W. Johnson, a neurosurgeon, who reported on September 27, 1991:
Jacquelyn Harper was reevaluated in the office September 26, 1991 at your request. I reviewed her MRI and, actually, all the films in the jacket once more. It is an excellent MRI and I saw no significant lesion.
Basically, my feeling is that Mrs. Harper can return to work at this time and do not feel any further physical therapy, and so forth, will be of any value to her.
The commission also explained why it accepted Dr. Johnson's opinion over those of the other physicians who said she was not able to return to work. The other physicians, the commission pointed out, were relying primarily upon the subjective symptoms that Harper reported to them. The commission noted that Dr. Johnson found no physical reason to explain the reported symptomatology and relied heavily upon two normal MRI readings. The commission found that the normal MRI readings supported Dr. Johnson's opinion more than the subjective complaints supported the contrary opinion of the other physicians.
Dr. Johnson's opinion and the normal MRI readings constituted credible evidence to support the finding of the commission. The decision appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.