COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick
BRUCE HENRY
v. Record No. 1556-95-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION *
PER CURIAM
PROFESSIONAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE DECEMBER 19, 1995
AND
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Bruce Henry, pro se, on brief).
No brief for appellees.
Bruce Henry (claimant) contends that the Workers'
Compensation Commission (commission) erred in denying his motion
to quash the request of Professional Building Maintenance
(employer) for claimant to submit to an independent medical
examination (IME) by Dr. Herbert E. Lane, Jr., an orthopedic
surgeon, on May 16, 1995. Specifically, claimant contends that
the commission erred in finding that the IME was reasonable and
necessary pursuant to Code § 65.2-607. Upon reviewing the record
and claimant's brief, we conclude that this appeal is without
merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's
decision. Rule 5A:27.
Claimant sustained a compensable back injury on March 24,
1986. Since this injury, David B. Dolburg and Ross H. Weinberg,
chiropractors, have provided treatment to claimant. Claimant
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
underwent an IME by Dr. Herbert H. Joseph, an orthopedic surgeon,
on December 16, 1992. On November 30, 1994, the commission
approved employer's request for Jerry Clowers, a chiropractor, to
examine claimant. Due to a dispute between claimant and Dr.
Clowers concerning witnesses who would be present during the
examination, the IME did not take place. Thereafter, employer
scheduled the May 16, 1995 IME with Dr. Lane.
As of July 1, 1993, Code § 65.2-607 required an employer to
obtain authorization from the commission for more than one IME
per medical specialty based upon a showing of good cause or
necessity. After considering Code § 65.2-607, the time which had
passed since claimant's injury, and the date on which he had last
received an IME, the commission ruled that employer's request for
an IME with Dr. Lane was reasonable and necessary. Based upon
the commission's rationale and upon this record, which, among
other things, clearly reveals claimant's ongoing attempts to
circumvent the commission's approval of employer's requests for
medical examinations, we cannot say that the commission erred in
requiring that claimant submit to an IME by Dr. Lane.
For the reasons stated, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
2