COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Bumgardner and Agee
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
ATLAS PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL, INC., AND
HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
OPINION BY
v. Record No. 3121-01-4 JUDGE G. STEVEN AGEE
JULY 23, 2002
JERRY LEE LANG
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
Alexander Francuzenko (O'Connell & O'Connell,
on brief), for appellant.
Jimmy L. Hill (Roger Ritchie & Partners,
P.L.C., on brief), for appellee.
Atlas Plumbing and Mechanical, Inc. and its insurer
(hereinafter referred to as "employer") contend the Workers'
Compensation Commission erred in finding that Jerry Lee Lang
(claimant) was justified in refusing selective employment
offered to him by employer. We disagree and affirm the
commission's decision.
I. BACKGROUND
Claimant began working for employer as a plumber in July
1993. Prior to going to work for employer, claimant worked as a
plumber for another company, which provided him with
transportation to and from work. Employer solicited claimant to
leave his existing job and work for it. Claimant's acceptance
of employer's offer of employment was conditioned on employer's
promise to provide him with transportation to and from work.
Claimant lived seventy miles from employer's office in Manassas
and was assigned job sites in Northern Virginia, all of which
were over an hour from claimant's home in Luray. The commission
found claimant's testimony was unrebutted that when claimant
accepted employer's offer of employment employer agreed to
provide transportation to claimant "as long as . . . [he] worked
for Atlas."
On July 2, 1999, claimant sustained a compensable injury by
accident to his lower back while working for employer. Pursuant
to a Memorandum of Agreement filed with the commission, claimant
received temporary total benefits beginning on July 3, 1999.
On February 7, 2000, claimant was released by his physician
to light-duty work. On May 3, 2000, the employer filed an
Application for Hearing with the commission, alleging the
claimant refused a February 10, 2000 offer of selective
employment at its Manassas warehouse.
At a hearing before the commission, claimant testified that
he was interested in the position offered but was unable to
accept it because the position did not include transportation to
and from work. 1 Claimant did not own a vehicle that he could
1
Claimant received a letter from employer on February 9,
2000, which confirmed his release to light-duty work,
acknowledged the offer of a light-duty position in the
warehouse, and stated claimant was to report to work on February
10, 2000, at 7:00 a.m. The letter also stated:
- 2 -
drive to and from Manassas and was unable to arrange
transportation. The commission held claimant was justified in
refusing the offered selective employment:
While we agree that as a general
proposition, employers do not have to
provide employees with transportation to
selective employment, we find that if, as in
this case, the employee's acceptance of
pre-injury employment was contingent on
employer-provided transportation to and from
work and suitable alternatives are not
available, then the employee is justified in
refusing light duty employment if the
employer refuses to provide transportation.
II. ANALYSIS
On appeal, employer contends the commission erred in
finding claimant was justified in refusing the offered
light-duty position that was within his residual capacity. For
the following reasons, we disagree and affirm the commission's
decision.
"To support a finding of refusal of selective employment
'the record must disclose (1) a bona fide job offer suitable to
the employee's capacity; (2) [a job offer that was] procured for
the employee by the employer; and (3) an unjustified refusal by
You were previously afforded transportation
when on full duty because your job duties
required you report to different job
locations. The job in the warehouse is a
restricted duty position that does not
require traveling during your work shift,
thus you will not be provided
transportation.
- 3 -
the employee to accept the job.'" James v. Capitol Steel
Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 489 (1989)
(quoting Ellerson v. W.O. Grubb Steel Erection Co., 1 Va. App.
97, 98, 335 S.E.2d 379, 380 (1985)).
There is ample credible evidence in the record to support
the commission's finding that the employer met its burden
regarding the first two elements. 2 The employer found for the
employee a bona fide position suitable to claimant's capacity.
Thus, the burden shifted to claimant to prove his refusal of
that bona fide job offer was justified. Talley v. Goodwin
Brothers Lumber Co., 224 Va. 48, 294 S.E.2d 818 (1982).
This appeal does not present a case of
conflicting evidence or a dispute concerning
the commission's findings of fact. When the
issue is the sufficiency of the evidence and
there is no conflict in the evidence, the
issue is purely a question of law. This
Court is not bound by the legal
determinations made by the commission.
"[W]e must inquire to determine if the
correct legal conclusion has been reached."
Cibula v. Allied Fibers & Plastics, 14 Va. App. 319, 324, 416
S.E.2d 708, 711 (1992) (internal citations omitted).
"To support a finding of justification to refuse suitable
selective employment, 'the reasons advanced must be such that a
reasaonable person desirous of employment would have refused the
2
The commission found claimant waived any challenge to the
first two elements and, therefore, waived his right to challenge
the commission's finding that the employer sustained its burden
on these elements. The claimant does not challenge this finding
on appeal.
- 4 -
offered work.'" Food Lion v. Lee, 16 Va. App. 616, 619, 431
S.E.2d 342, 344 (1993) (quoting Johnson v. Virginia Employment
Comm'n, 8 Va. App. 441, 452, 382 S.E.2d 476, 481 (1989)). In
the case at bar, claimant argued that he was unable to accept
the offered position because (1) he did not have transportation
to the place of employment and (2) employer breached its
agreement to provide transportation. Under the circumstances
represented in this record, we find claimant's refusal to accept
the selective employment position was justified and, thus,
claimant met his burden of proof.
We agree with the commission's assertion that an employer
does not have the general duty to provide transportation for its
employees; therefore, the failure of an employer to provide
transportation to selective employment will not provide a
sufficient basis for an employee's refusal of that employment
offer. See generally Klate Holt Co. v. Holt, 229 Va. 544, 547,
331 S.E.2d 446, 448 (1985). In the case at bar, however, the
employer had a contractual obligation to provide claimant with
transportation which arose from the employment agreement between
the parties.
Claimant's unrebutted testimony proved that he was ready
and willing to return to light-duty work for employer, but for
the lack of employer-provided transportation to which he was
entitled under the terms of his employment contract. It was
undisputed that employer knew claimant required
- 5 -
employer-provided transportation when employer hired him and
that such transportation was a prerequisite to his acceptance of
the pre-injury job. But for employer's covenant to provide
claimant with transportation for so long as he worked for it,
claimant would not have quit his previous job. Employer
provided claimant with transportation to and from work up until
the time of his compensable injury by accident. The change to
selective employment does not vitiate employer's original
contract obligation to provide claimant with transportation.
Therefore, when employer offered claimant a selective employment
position without providing a means of transportation, claimant
was justified in refusing the offer. "The condition preventing
. . . acceptance of selective employment need not be physical."
Moran v. R & W Constr., Inc., 21 Va. App. 195, 199, 462 S.E.2d
919, 921 (1995). The employer breached its contractual
obligation to claimant to provide him transportation. See
generally Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. O'Neal, 224 Va. 343, 297
S.E.2d 647 (1982) (issues relating to the establishment and
breach of employment contracts).
We are not persuaded by employer's contention that the
Supreme Court of Virginia's decision in Holt, 229 Va. 544, 331
S.E.2d 446, controls and requires a different decision in this
case. That case is clearly distinguishable.
In Holt, the employee, a mail clerk released to light-duty
employment, refused to accept the selective employment position
- 6 -
procured by the employer and approved by her physician. She
refused the position because she did not want to work in the
selective position and did not own a motor vehicle in which to
transport herself to the job assignment. The commission found
that the employee was justified in refusing the offered position
due (1) to the transportation problem and (2) because the
employer failed to make arrangements to provide transportation
in light of the fact that the job required the employee to
provide her own means of transportation. The Supreme Court
reversed the commission's decision.
The employee's outright refusal to accept
the security guard job offers rendered
consideration of the transportation aspect
of the employment irrelevant. By
unconditional rejection of the offers, the
employee demonstrated an unwillingness to
accept employment within her residual
capacity. Her unilateral action thwarted
any further efforts by . . . [the employer]
to assist her in solving her transportation
dilemma.
Id. at 547, 331 S.E.2d at 448. Moreover, there was no evidence
in Holt that employer had a contractual obligation to provide
transportation.
Under the facts of this case, the employer is bound by its
contractual obligation to provide transportation to claimant,
which the transition to selective employment does not alter.
The employer's breach of its obligation provided adequate
justification for claimant's refusal of selective employment.
- 7 -
Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the commission.
Affirmed.
A Copy,
Teste:
Cynthia L. McCoy, Clerk
By:
Deputy Clerk
- 8 -