COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Bumgardner, Kelsey and Senior Judge Hodges
GLORIA S. BROWN
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. Record No. 3311-02-1 PER CURIAM
JULY 1, 2003
VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE/
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Gloria S. Brown, 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.
Gloria S. Brown (claimant) contends the Workers'
Compensation Commission erred in finding that employer proved
claimant was fully able to perform the duties of her pre-injury
work as of January 15, 2001. Upon reviewing the record and the
parties' briefs, we conclude that this appeal is without merit.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's decision.
Rule 5A:27.
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).
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
"General principles of workman's compensation law provide that
'in an application for review of any award on the ground of
change in condition, the burden is on the party alleging such
change to prove his allegations by a preponderance of the
evidence.'" Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Bateman, 4 Va. App.
459, 464, 359 S.E.2d 98, 101 (1987) (quoting Pilot Freight
Carriers, Inc. v. Reeves, 1 Va. App. 435, 438-39, 339 S.E.2d
570, 572 (1986)). Factual findings made by the commission will
be upheld on appeal if supported by credible evidence. See
James v. Capitol Steel Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382
S.E.2d 487, 488 (1989).
In granting employer's application seeking to terminate
claimant's outstanding award for temporary total disability
benefits, the commission found as follows:
Dr. [Charles E.] Wilhelm's January 3,
2001, letter to the claimant clearly shows
that he considered her physical
capabilities, as well as the requirements of
her job before releasing her to preinjury
employment. In his November 8, 2000,
report, Dr. Wilhelm noted that the claimant
was concerned that she was unable to return
to work, and he suggested a meeting between
himself, the claimant, her work supervisor,
[Susan] Jones[, her R.N. rehab specialist],
and [Sally] Wooldridge[, her hand
therapist,] to establish any necessary work
restrictions. Although there is a dispute
regarding whether the claimant refused to
attend that meeting, or was not invited,
there is no evidence to contradict
Dr. Wilhelm's statement that he reviewed the
physical requirements of her job as
described by her supervisor and the
- 2 -
department supervisor before he released her
to return to work.
In her written statement, the claimant
asserts that she "knows more about what type
of job she does than those reporting to the
doctor from the employer." However, we find
that her supervisor and the department
supervisor were able to adequately testify
regarding her job description.
After meeting with her supervisor and
the department supervisor to determine her
job requirements, the claimant's treating
physician released her to preinjury
employment. Although the most recent
medical reports are from Dr. [Boyd W.]
Haynes[, III], we note that he did not
recommend any work restrictions. There is
no medical evidence to support the
claimant's testimony that she is unable to
return to her preinjury job. Furthermore,
there is no evidence that she unsuccessfully
attempted to return to work.
Dr. Wilhelm's unequivocal medical records and reports
provide credible evidence to support the commission's finding
that claimant was released to perform all of the duties of her
pre-injury work without restrictions as of January 15, 2001. As
fact finder, the commission was entitled to accept Dr. Wilhelm's
unequivocal and well-considered opinion, and to reject
claimant's testimony to the contrary. Because credible evidence
supports the commission's findings, we are bound by them on
appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
- 3 -