Nicole C. Chantee v. Hudson Industries Inc. ( 2001 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Willis, Frank and Clements
NICOLE C. CHANTEE
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. Record No. 2012-01-3 PER CURIAM
DECEMBER 27, 2001
HUDSON INDUSTRIES, INC. AND HARTFORD
INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Nicole Chantee, pro se, on briefs).
(Patricia C. Arrighi; Taylor & Walker, P.C.,
on brief), for appellees.
Nicole C. Chantee (claimant) contends the Workers'
Compensation Commission erred in finding that employer proved
that claimant's change-in-condition claims filed on September
22, October 24, and November 8, 2000, seeking temporary total
disability benefits from May 23, 2000 and continuing, were
barred by the statute of limitations under Code § 65.2-708.
Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we
conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we
summarily affirm the commission's decision. Rule 5A:27. 1
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
1
In rendering our decision we have considered only the
evidence and issue that was before the commission when it
rendered its decision. Accordingly, we need not address the
appellees' Motion in Opposition to Appellant's Designation of
Appendix and Questions Presented.
On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the prevailing party below. See 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 ruling that claimant's change-in-condition applications
were barred by the applicable statute of limitations, the
commission found as follows:
Section [65.2-708] requires that a change in
condition claim be filed within 24 months
from the date compensation was last paid
pursuant to an award under the Act. The
claimant was last paid compensation on June
4, 1998. She did not file a claim seeking
additional compensation benefits until
September 22, 2000. Therefore, the claim
was filed after the twenty-four month
statute of limitations period. After
reviewing the record before the Commission,
we cannot find that the employer or insurer
acted in a manner that would cause it to be
equitably estopped from relying on the
statute of limitations. It is clear that on
May 23, 2000, within the statutory period,
the claimant was aware that she had total
disability. She testified that her
condition deteriorated after the October
1999 Hearing. There is no evidence that the
employer or insurer in any way represented
or otherwise deterred the claimant from
filing a claim. Likewise, we cannot find
that this is a case for applying imposition.
We find no evidence that the employer or the
Commission used any superior knowledge or
experience with workers' compensation or
economic leverage to deprive the claimant of
benefits under the Act. When the claimant's
- 2 -
treating physician suggested it would be
better that she see someone else, the
insurer attempted to supply her with panels
and ultimately accepted Dr. [Charles M.]
James as the claimant's treating physician.
We also note that Dr. [Douglas E.] Jessup
continued to see the claimant on July 11,
2000, even after she began treatment with
Dr. James. We find nothing to indicate that
the insurer's actions caused an imposition
on the claimant such as to delay her filing
a change in condition claim.
Credible evidence, including claimant's testimony and the
medical records, supports the commission's findings that
claimant was aware during the statutory period that she suffered
from total disability and that her applications were filed more
than twenty-four months after she was last paid compensation
pursuant to an award. In addition, no evidence supported the
application of the doctrines of equitable estoppel or imposition
in this case. Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision
that claimant's applications were barred by the applicable
statute of limitations.
Affirmed.
- 3 -