COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Frank
AT&T CORPORATION
AND
GATES MCDONALD & COMPANY
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. Record No. 0171-99-4 PER CURIAM
JUNE 22, 1999
MARIA A. LEWIS-THOMAS
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(James C. Joyce, Jr.; Monica L. Taylor;
Gentry, Locke, Rakes & Moore, on brief), for
appellants.
No brief for appellee.
AT&T Corporation and its insurer (hereinafter referred to as
"employer") contend that the Workers' Compensation Commission
(commission) erred in finding that Maria Lewis-Thomas (claimant)
proved that she was totally disabled during the period from
October 25, 1995 through December 4, 1995 as a result of her
compensable October 17, 1995 injury by accident. Upon reviewing
the record and opening brief, we conclude that this appeal is
without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's
decision. See Rule 5A:27.
On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the prevailing party below. See R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v.
*Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010,
this opinion is not designated for publication.
Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990).
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).
The medical evidence established that Dr. Rochelle Hardy,
claimant's initial treating physician, excused her from work
beginning October 18, 1995 through October 23, 1995. In an
October 23, 1995 disability slip, Dr. Hardy released claimant to
return to work on October 24, 1995. When Dr. Hardy examined
claimant again on October 30, 1995, she noted that claimant had
attempted to return to work on October 24, 1995, but was forced to
stop working due to severe back pain. Dr. Hardy noted that
claimant had not worked since October 24, 1995. Dr. Hardy advised
claimant to continue her medications and heat treatment. She also
noted that she would consider recommending physical therapy after
she received the results of certain x-rays.
Claimant testified that based upon Dr. Hardy's statements,
she believed that she was to remain out of work until her
appointment with an orthopedist.
On November 13, 1995, Dr. David Johnson, a neurologist,
performed an independent medical examination of claimant. Dr.
Johnson recommended that claimant undergo four weeks of physical
therapy. Dr. Johnson opined that claimant might be able to return
to restricted-work duty within a couple of weeks. On that same
date, Dr. Hardy referred claimant to begin physical therapy.
- 2 -
Claimant began physical therapy on November 20, 1995. Dr.
Hardy referred claimant to Dr. Rafael A. Lopez, an orthopedic
surgeon. On December 5, 1995, Dr. Lopez first examined claimant.
He ordered an MRI and excused claimant from work at least until
her next office visit. A December 11, 1995 MRI revealed
"[m]ulti-level degenerative disc changes at L3-S1, with
minimal-moderate left lateral disc herniation at L4-L5
superimposed on a minimal diffuse disc bulge."
The medical records of Drs. Hardy, Johnson, and Lopez,
coupled with claimant's testimony, constitute credible evidence to
support the commission's finding. Based upon that evidence, the
commission, as fact finder, could reasonably infer that claimant
remained totally disabled during the period from October 25, 1995
through December 4, 1995. Although Dr. Hardy released claimant to
return to work on October 24, 1995, claimant was not able to
continue working due to severe back pain. On October 30, 1995,
when Dr. Hardy learned of claimant's unsuccessful attempt to
return to work and her continuing back symptoms, she did not
recommend that claimant try to return to work, instead she
referred her for physical therapy and for treatment by Dr. Lopez.
"Where reasonable inferences may be drawn from the evidence in
support of the commission's factual findings, they will not be
disturbed by this Court on appeal." Hawks v. Henrico Co. Sch.
Bd., 7 Va. App. 398, 404, 374 S.E.2d 695, 698 (1988).
- 3 -
For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
- 4 -