COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Bumgardner, Kelsey and Senior Judge Hodges
CHARLES L. BELL
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. Record No. 0994-03-2 PER CURIAM
SEPTEMBER 2, 2003
BRUNSWICK CORRECTIONAL CENTER/
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Charles L. Bell, pro se, on brief).
(Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General; Judith
Williams Jagdmann, Deputy Attorney General;
Edward M. Macon, Senior Assistant Attorney
General; Scott John Fitzgerald, Assistant
Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Charles L. Bell (claimant) contends the Workers'
Compensation Commission erred in finding that Brunswick
Correctional Center/Commonwealth of Virginia (employer) was not
responsible for the cost of claimant's August 25, 2001 MRI and
its subsequent radiological interpretation on the ground that
claimant failed to prove that such medical treatment was
causally related to his compensable June 13, 1992 injury by
accident. Upon reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, we
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we
summarily affirm the commission's decision. Rule 5A:27. 1
On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the prevailing party below. R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v.
Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990).
Unless we can say as a matter of law that claimant's evidence
sustained his burden of proof, the commission's findings are
binding and conclusive upon us. Tomko v. Michael's Plastering
Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1970).
In denying claimant's claim, the commission found as
follows:
The medical reports draw no connection
between the claimant's work injury to his
shoulder and neck, and the brain MRI to
evaluate for a condition related to multiple
sclerosis, a condition from which the
claimant's brother also suffered. Absent a
definitive statement from one of his
treating or examining doctors linking the
MRI to his work injury, we cannot find that
the claimant has met his burden of proving
that the MRI is causally related to his work
accident and we cannot surmise that there is
a causal connection. While the claimant
reported continuing cervical pain on
occasion, none of the claimant's doctors
link the brain MRI to the claimant's work
1
Employer argued in its brief that the statute of
limitations contained in Code § 65.2-602 barred claimant's
attempt to assert injuries other than to his right shoulder.
Our affirmance of the commission's denial of claimant's claim on
the ground that he failed to prove the disputed medical expenses
were causally related to his compensable 1992 work-related
accident is dispositive of this appeal. Thus, we decline to
address employer's argument regarding the statute of
limitations.
- 2 -
injury. As the defendant points out,
Dr. [Cletus] Arula [sic] did not order the
brain MRI to rule out shoulder or neck
pathology or to determine whether the
claimant's symptoms were connected to his
work injury.
In light of the lack of any persuasive medical evidence
establishing a causal connection between the brain MRI and
claimant's compensable June 13, 1992 injury by accident, we
cannot find as a matter of law that claimant's evidence
sustained his burden of proof. Accordingly, we affirm the
commission's decision.
Affirmed.
- 3 -