The Standard Companies, Inc. v. Brian K. Smith ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                              COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present: Judges Humphreys, McCullough and Senior Judge Bumgardner
    UNPUBLISHED
    THE STANDARD COMPANIES, INC. AND
    TRAVELERS INDEMNITY INSURANCE
    COMPANY OF AMERICA
    MEMORANDUM OPINION *
    v.     Record No. 2133-12-4                                               PER CURIAM
    MARCH 5, 2013
    BRIAN K. SMITH
    FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
    (Michael E. Ollen; Law Offices of Roger S. Mackey, on brief), for
    appellants.
    (Lawrence J. Pascal; Ashcraft & Gerel, LLP, on brief), for appellee.
    The Standard Companies, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Insurance Company of America
    (hereinafter referred to as employer) appeal an October 23, 2012 decision of the Workers’
    Compensation Commission affirming a senior claims examiner’s determination that there was
    not probable cause to refer employer’s application to the evidentiary hearing docket. Employer’s
    application alleged Brian K. Smith (claimant) unreasonably refused medical treatment.
    Employer contends the commission erred in finding 1) that there was insufficient probable cause
    to support the refusal to submit employer’s application to the evidentiary docket, 2) that
    employer is “precluded from a hearing on the issue of whether [claimant’s] surgery refusal for
    unrelated neck condition is not an appropriate ground for evidentiary hearing,” and 3) that
    claimant “did not willfully refuse medical treatment by refusing surgery for unrelated neck
    condition keeping him out of work.”
    *
    Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
    We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is
    without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final
    opinion. See Smith v. Standard Cos., VWC File No. JCN 234-14-68 (Oct. 23, 2012). We
    dispense with oral argument and summarily 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: 2133124

Filed Date: 3/5/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014