COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elder, Clements and Senior Judge Annunziata
JOHN DANIEL GRANTHAM
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 1174-08-2 PER CURIAM
SEPTEMBER 23, 2008
B & S LANDSCAPING, INC.,
SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.
AND UNINSURED EMPLOYER’S FUND
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(John Daniel Grantham, pro se, on briefs).
(Paul R. Schmidt; Huff, Poole & Mahoney, P.C., on brief), for
appellee Uninsured Employer’s Fund.
No brief for appellees B & S Landscaping, Inc. or Sedgwick
Claims Management Services, Inc.
John Daniel Grantham (claimant) appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation
Commission denying his claim for payment of (1) medical expenses, mileage reimbursement,
and prescriptions associated with treatment rendered to him by Dr. Mark Romanoff; and (2) the
cost of a gym membership and mileage to the gym. Pursuant to Rule 5A:21(b), The Uninsured
Employer’s Fund (“the Fund”) raises the additional questions of whether the commission erred
in finding (1) Dr. Dennis Cronin’s chiropractic treatment and prescription for a VMS/Intellect
Machine were medically necessary; and (2) Dr. Cronin’s opinions were adequately supported by
credible evidence. 1
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
1
The commission made additional findings that the deputy commissioner did not err in
her handling of the hearing or in accepting the lay testimony of Reverend Long and that her
decision did not reflect undue weight given to Long’s testimony. Those findings are not before
Notwithstanding claimant’s failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 5A:20 with
respect to his opening brief, we have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the record, and the
commission’s opinion and find that claimant’s appeal is without merit. Based upon that review,
we also find the questions raised on appeal by the Fund are without merit. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Grantham v. B & S
Landscaping, Inc., VWC File No. 068-94-10 (April 25, 2008). We dispense with oral argument
and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code
§ 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.
us on appeal. We also note that in summarily affirming the commission’s decision, we
considered only the evidence and issues properly before the commission when it rendered its
decision.
-2-