A O Smith Corporation v. Linda H Goad ( 2003 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Bumgardner, Kelsey and Senior Judge Hodges
A.O. SMITH CORPORATION AND
SENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. Record No. 2626-02-3 PER CURIAM
FEBRUARY 19, 2003
LINDA H. GOAD
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(James G. Muncie, Jr.; Thomas C. Bunting;
Midkiff, Muncie & Ross, P.C., on brief), for
appellants.
No brief for appellee.
A.O. Smith Corporation and its insurer (hereinafter
referred to as "employer") contend the Workers' Compensation
Commission erred in finding that Linda H. Goad (claimant) proved
that (1) she sustained a compensable change in condition as of
June 20, 2001; (2) she was working light-duty despite her having
signed two agreement forms indicating that she was released to
her pre-injury employment as of March 18, 2001; and (3) her
layoff from her job with employer on June 20, 2001 constituted a
compensable change in condition. Upon reviewing the record and
opening brief, we conclude that this appeal is without merit.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
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).
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 claimant's application, the commission found as
follows:
As to the claimant's condition on June
20, 2001, Dr. [Joseph H.] Wombwell indicated
he reviewed a job description provided for
the claimant, and concluded that she "could
perform this job based on her functional
capacity evaluation as long as the lifting
of twenty-five pounds was not a frequent
occurrence." The record contains a job
analysis of the claimant's pre-injury job as
an assembler and includes a detailed
description of her use of a nut running
tool. The job analysis indicates that the
claimant frequently was required to lift
between five and twenty-five pounds a total
distance of between three and six inches.
We do not need to decide if the two
forms signed by the claimant that were
memorialized in final Orders and not
appealed, are legally binding. The claimant
proved a change in condition whether or not
the forms and Orders are binding.
If we accept the employer's argument
that the agreement forms and Orders
establish the claimant was at full duty on
March 18, 2000, Dr. Wombwell's June 20,
2001, report proves her condition changed.
He found her only able to perform light
- 2 -
duty. At most the forms prove the
claimant's ability to work full duty on
March 18, 2000, the date recited on the
forms. They say nothing about the
claimant's condition on the date she alleges
her condition changed, June 20, 2001.
If we find the forms and Orders are not
binding, then the claimant was working at
light duty from when she returned to work on
March 18, 2000. She proved entitlement to
benefits since she was laid off while
working at a light duty position.
The commission's factual finding that claimant was not
released to perform her pre-injury job as of June 20, 2001 is
supported by credible evidence, including claimant's testimony
and Dr. Wombwell's June 20, 2001 medical report. Regardless of
the agreements signed by claimant with respect to her work
status as of March 18, 2000, credible evidence proved that as of
June 20, 2001, she was unable to perform all of the duties of
her pre-injury job. Accordingly, she proved a compensable
change in condition, entitling her to an award of temporary
total disability benefits commencing June 20, 2001. 1
Because our affirmance of the commission's finding that
claimant proved a compensable change in condition as of June 20,
2001, based on her testimony and Dr. Wombwell's medical reports,
disposes of this appeal, we need not address questions II. and
III. raised by employer.
1
Employer did not appeal the commission's finding that
claimant adequately marketed her residual work capacity as of
June 20, 2001. Accordingly, we need not address that issue on
appeal.
- 3 -
For these reasons, we affirm the commission's findings.
Affirmed.
- 4 -