Dynalectric Company and Ace American Insurance Company v. Tariq Saahir ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                                COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present: Judges Bumgardner, Kelsey and Senior Judge Hodges
    DYNALECTRIC COMPANY AND
    ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY
    MEMORANDUM OPINION*
    v.     Record No. 2019-05-4                                         PER CURIAM
    DECEMBER 13, 2005
    TARIQ SAAHIR
    FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
    (Joseph C. Veith, III; Trichilo, Bancroft, McGavin, Horvath &
    Judkins, P.C., on brief), for appellants.
    No brief for appellee.
    Dynalectric Company and its insurer (hereinafter referred to as “employer”) appeal a
    decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that Tariq Saahir proved he
    sustained a compensable injury by accident on October 21, 2003. We have reviewed the record
    and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit.1 Accordingly, we affirm
    for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Saahir v. Dynalectric Co.,
    VWC File No. 219-56-05 (July 26, 2005). We dispense with oral argument and summarily
    *
    Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
    1
    In rendering this decision, we do not consider Questions 2 and 3 presented by employer
    in its opening brief. Rule 5A:18 bars our consideration of Question 2, because employer did not
    argue before the commission that it erred in failing to consider the arising out of and causation
    issues. Employer could have brought this question to the commission’s attention in a motion to
    reconsider to allow it the opportunity to consider and correct any perceived error before such
    error was brought to this Court for review, but chose not to do so. See Williams v. Gloucester
    Sheriff’s Dep’t, 
    266 Va. 409
    , 410, 
    587 S.E.2d 546
    , 547 (2003). In addition, because the full
    commission did not address the issues raised in Question 3, we do not consider them on appeal.
    affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
    the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.
    Affirmed.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2019054

Filed Date: 12/13/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014