Present: All the Justices
JEFFREY L. WILLIAMS
v. Record No. 022213 OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY
October 31, 2003
GLOUCESTER (COUNTY OF) SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT, ET AL.
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
The issue in this appeal is whether the contemporaneous
objection rule prohibits a party from appealing a decision of
the Workers' Compensation Commission rendered on grounds
neither raised nor previously addressed in the proceedings, if
an objection to that decision was not made the subject of a
motion for rehearing or reconsideration before the Commission.
Jeffrey L. Williams sought workers' compensation benefits
for heart disease he claimed he developed while employed by
the Gloucester County Sheriff's Department. A deputy
commissioner denied his claim, and Williams sought review of
this decision by the full Commission. The Commission affirmed
the decision of the deputy commissioner, but on different
grounds. The Commission determined that Williams' last
"injurious exposure" occurred while he was employed by the
Virginia Peninsula Regional Jail Authority, not the Gloucester
County Sheriff's Department, and therefore, that Williams was
not entitled to benefits from the Sheriff's Department.
Williams appealed the Commission's decision to the Court
of Appeals, asserting that the Commission erred in denying
benefits based on its conclusions regarding Williams' last
injurious exposure. The Court of Appeals in an unpublished
memorandum per curiam opinion refused to consider Williams'
appeal, holding that Williams failed to preserve the issue for
appeal because he did not file a motion for reconsideration
raising this issue before the Commission. This failure,
according to the Court of Appeals, deprived the Commission of
the opportunity to correct the alleged error and thus violated
the principles associated with the contemporaneous objection
rule, Rule 5A:18. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed
the Commission's decision. Jeffrey L. Williams v. Gloucester
(County of) Sheriff's Department and Virginia Municipal Group
Self-Insurance Association, No. 0905-02-4 (August 27, 2002)
(memorandum per curiam).
In this appeal, Williams argues that because the basis
for the Commission's decision was not raised, litigated, or in
any way considered as an issue in the case prior to the
issuance of the Commission's decision, because there is no
formal procedure for filing a motion for reconsideration
before the Commission, and because such motion does not stay
the time for filing an appeal, the Court of Appeals should not
2
have applied Rule 5A:18 to bar his appeal. We disagree with
Williams.
The contemporaneous objection rule, embodied in Rule
5A:18 in the Court of Appeals and Rule 5:25 in this Court, is
based on the principle that a litigant has the responsibility
to afford a court the opportunity to consider and correct a
perceived error before such error is brought to the appellate
court for review. Reid v. Baumgardner, 217 Va. 769, 773, 232
S.E.2d 778, 781 (1977). The contemporaneous objection rules
in each court exist "to protect the trial court from appeals
based upon undisclosed grounds, to prevent the setting of
traps on appeal, to enable the trial judge to rule
intelligently, and to avoid unnecessary reversals and
mistrials." Reid v. Boyle, 259 Va. 356, 372, 527 S.E.2d 137,
146 (2000) (quoting Fisher v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 403, 414,
374 S.E.2d 46, 52 (1988)). These rules are not limited to
evidentiary rulings and require objection while the tribunal
is in a position to correct a claimed error. Id.; Reid v.
Baumgardner, 217 Va. at 774, 232 S.E.2d at 781.
Williams is correct when he states that the Rules of the
Commission do not contain specific procedures for a motion for
rehearing or motion to reconsider; nevertheless such motions
are not uncommon, and the Commission may vacate the original
decision pending consideration of such a motion. Hamilton v.
3
Basic Construction Company, 77 O.I.C. 245, 247 (1998). Even
if the original decision is not vacated, filing a motion for
reconsideration does not impair a litigant's right to pursue a
timely appeal.
Finally, the requirement that a litigant file a motion
for rehearing or reconsideration to preserve an issue for
appeal under these circumstances is not a new requirement.
The Court of Appeals has consistently held that the failure to
file such motions under these circumstances bars raising the
issue on appeal. Henrico County Public Utilities v. Taylor,
34 Va. App. 233, 241-42 n.4, 540 S.E.2d 501, 506 n.4 (2001);
Overhead Door Co. of Norfolk v. Lewis, 29 Va. App. 52, 62, 509
S.E.2d 535, 539-40 (1999).
For these reasons, we conclude that the Court of Appeals
did not err in applying Rule 5A:18 in this case and holding
that Williams failed to preserve the issues he sought to raise
in his appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the
Court of Appeals.
Affirmed.
4