Federal Mogul, etc. v. Ernest L. Quesenberry ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                     COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present:   Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton
    FEDERAL MOGUL/BLACKSBURG PLANT
    AND
    TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY
    OF ILLINOIS                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION *
    PER CURIAM
    v.   Record No. 2929-95-3                       JUNE 11, 1996
    ERNEST LEROY QUESENBERRY
    FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
    (Linda Davis Frith; Monica L. Taylor; Gentry,
    Locke, Rakes & Moore, on briefs), for
    appellants.
    (Joseph J. Steffen, Jr., on brief), for
    appellee.
    Federal Mogul/Blacksburg Plant and its insurer (hereinafter
    collectively referred to as "employer") contend that the Workers'
    Compensation Commission ("commission") erred in awarding
    permanent partial disability benefits to Ernest Leroy Quesenberry
    ("claimant").   Employer argues that the commission erred in
    finding that claimant proved he had reached maximum medical
    improvement.    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.
    On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable
    to the prevailing party below.    R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v.
    *
    Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
    designated for publication.
    Mullins, 
    10 Va. App. 211
    , 212, 
    390 S.E.2d 788
    , 788 (1990).
    Factual findings made by the commission if supported by credible
    evidence are binding upon this Court.     James v. Capitol Steel
    Constr. Co., 
    8 Va. App. 512
    , 515, 
    382 S.E.2d 487
    , 488 (1989).
    On June 21, 1992, claimant injured his right knee while in
    the course of his employment.   Employer accepted the injury as
    compensable and claimant received temporary total disability
    benefits.   Claimant returned to work on June 1, 1993.   On January
    4, 1995, claimant filed his second application for permanent
    partial disability benefits, his first application having been
    denied by the commission due to claimant's failure to prove
    maximum medical improvement.
    On June 17, 1993, Dr. John A. Cardea, treating orthopedic
    surgeon, opined that claimant had sustained a sixty-five percent
    permanent impairment to his right knee.    Dr. Cardea told claimant
    that a knee fusion or a total knee replacement were the only
    further treatment he could offer.    Claimant refused the knee
    fusion and told Dr. Cardea that he would consider the total knee
    replacement.   Dr. Cardea explained that, if claimant successfully
    underwent total knee replacement surgery, his disability would be
    reduced to thirty percent.   However, Dr. Cardea acknowledged that
    a total knee replacement would not give claimant a lifetime of
    relief, but only ten to fifteen years at the most.
    On October 27, 1993, Dr. S. R. Mackay, another of claimant's
    treating orthopedists, opined that claimant had reached maximum
    2
    medical improvement and that at "some time in the future" he
    might be a candidate for total knee replacement surgery.
    On November 2, 1993, Dr. Cardea opined that claimant had
    "reached his maximum medical benefit," and that any further
    benefit would come from a knee fusion or total knee replacement.
    However, he recognized that both procedures posed "grave risks."
    On March 30, 1994, Dr. Mackay opined that claimant might
    need a total knee replacement at some time in the future,
    "although this might not be for another several years."     Dr.
    Mackay also stated that, even if claimant had the total knee
    replacement surgery, he might not improve and the surgery could
    increase his disability.   Dr. Mackay deferred for a year
    determining whether claimant had reached maximum medical
    improvement.   On May 8, 1995, Dr. Mackay opined that he found no
    change in claimant's impairment and that it was permanent.    Dr.
    Mackay stated that "at this time we have determined that the
    [total knee replacement] is 'not necessary' but might become so
    in the future."
    In awarding permanent partial disability benefits to
    claimant, the commission found that he had reached maximum
    medical improvement and had sustained a sixty-five percent
    impairment to his right knee based upon Dr. Cardea's rating.      The
    commission rejected employer's contention that claimant had not
    reached maximum medical improvement because of the possibility
    that he would undergo total knee replacement surgery at some time
    3
    in the future.
    In order for the commission to award permanent partial
    disability benefits pursuant to Code § 65.2-503, "it must appear
    both that the partial incapacity is permanent and that the injury
    has reached maximum medical improvement."    County of Spotsylvania
    v. Hart, 
    218 Va. 565
    , 568, 
    238 S.E.2d 813
    , 815 (1977).     The
    commission's decision is supported by credible evidence,
    including the medical records and opinions of Drs. Cardea and
    Mackay.   They opined that claimant's impairment was permanent and
    that he had reached maximum medical improvement.   Their records
    support the commission's conclusions that the possibility of
    claimant undergoing a total knee replacement and of obtaining a
    positive result was speculative, and that any benefit he might
    derive from the proposed surgery would not be permanent.    Because
    credible evidence supports the commission's decision, it is
    binding upon this Court on appeal.
    Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision.
    Affirmed.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2929953

Filed Date: 6/11/1996

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014