Cecil v. Brown v. James Randolph Jenkins ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                     COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present:   Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
    CECIL V. BROWN
    AND
    STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY           MEMORANDUM OPINION *
    PER CURIAM
    v.   Record No. 1595-96-2                       DECEMBER 10, 1996
    JAMES RANDOLPH JENKINS
    FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
    (Lynne Jones Blain; Michelle P. Wiltshire;
    Morris & Morris, on brief), for appellants.
    (Jeffrey C. Early; Berry & Early, on brief),
    for appellee.
    Cecil V. Brown and its insurer (hereinafter collectively
    referred to as "employer") contend that the Workers' Compensation
    Commission erred in (1) finding that employer failed to prove
    that James R. Jenkins unjustifiably refused to cooperate with
    vocational rehabilitation; and (2) not considering whether
    Jenkins' misrepresentation of his physical capabilities to his
    treating physician and the vocational rehabilitation counselors
    established an unjustified refusal to cooperate with vocational
    rehabilitation.   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.
    *
    Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010, this opinion is not
    designated for publication.
    I.
    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).      So
    viewed, the evidence established that Jenkins sustained a
    compensable injury to his left hand on May 15, 1992, while
    working as a carpenter for employer.    Dr. E. William Pelton, a
    neurologist, diagnosed Jenkins as suffering from reflex
    sympathetic dystrophy due to nerve damage caused by the trauma of
    the injury.   Dr. Pelton restricted Jenkins from any work
    involving his left hand.   Dr. Pelton opined that Jenkins could
    work an eight-hour day unless pain interfered with his sleep.
    Dr. Pelton's notes revealed that Jenkins' pain disturbed his
    sleep.
    On April 4, 1995, when vocational counselors Irene Creger
    and David Trivillino first met with Jenkins, Jenkins informed
    them that his physical therapy schedule for a shoulder condition
    would limit his availability to meet with them.    A week later,
    Jenkins met Trivillino at the Virginia Employment Commission
    ("VEC") and registered with the VEC.    Jenkins did not visit any
    prospective employers on that day because he did not feel well
    and his right arm was in a sling.     Jenkins also met with
    Trivillino and a Veteran's Administration representative on
    April 18, 1995 and April 25, 1995.    On those dates, Jenkins
    completed job applications.
    2
    Jenkins missed an appointment with Trivillino on April 21,
    1995.    Jenkins would not give Trivillino a copy of his driving
    record.
    On April 28, 1995, Michael Cheney, who replaced Trivillino,
    met with Jenkins.    Jenkins completed an application for a
    full-time job with a greenhouse, which involved placing seedlings
    in pots on a conveyor belt.    Jenkins indicated on the application
    that he could only work four hours per day.
    Jenkins went with Cheney to a Wal-Mart store on May 2, 1995,
    and applied for a "greeter" position.    The job required him to
    greet customers who entered the store for five hours per day.
    Jenkins stated that he could only perform this job four hours per
    day because the job required that he stand on a hard floor.
    Cheney called Jenkins on May 4, 1995, to confirm a meeting
    for the next day.    When Jenkins informed Cheney that he had only
    a limited amount of time to meet the next day due to his physical
    therapy schedule, Cheney handed the telephone to Creger, who then
    hung up on Jenkins after a short conversation.    Neither Cheney
    nor Creger contacted Jenkins again.
    After viewing a surveillance videotape depicting Jenkins'
    activities, Dr. Pelton testified by deposition that Jenkins could
    have performed the greeter job for five hours per day.    Dr.
    Pelton also stated that, based on the videotape, it appeared that
    Jenkins could use his left hand for limited periods.    Dr. Pelton
    testified, however, that he could not determine from the
    3
    videotape whether the activities caused pain or swelling.
    Employer filed an application seeking to suspend Jenkins'
    benefits based upon his unjustified refusal to cooperate with
    vocational rehabilitation.   Based upon Jenkins' age (65), the
    distance he lived from the primary job market, and the totality
    of the evidence, the commission concluded that Jenkins did not
    unjustifiably refuse to cooperate with employer's vocational
    rehabilitation efforts.
    II.
    Unless we can say as a matter of law that employer's
    evidence sustained its burden of proof, the commission's findings
    are binding and conclusive upon us.    See Tomko v. Michael's
    Plastering Co., 
    210 Va. 697
    , 699, 
    173 S.E.2d 833
    , 835 (1970).
    The employer's application to terminate benefits largely required
    the commission to make factual determinations.    According to
    well-established principles, "[m]atters of weight and
    preponderance of the evidence, and the resolution of conflicting
    inferences fairly deducible from the evidence, are within the
    prerogative of the commission, and are conclusive and binding on
    the Court of Appeals."    Kim v. Sportswear, 
    10 Va. App. 460
    , 465,
    
    393 S.E.2d 418
    , 421 (1990) (citations omitted).
    The evidence proved that only a relatively short period of
    time elapsed while employer attempted vocational rehabilitation.
    The commission recognized that Jenkins expressed reservations
    about the jobs, but found that his age, disconcerting physical
    4
    therapy, travel distance, and other factors limited the time
    available to conduct job searches.      Furthermore, the evidence
    proved that Creger's unilateral decision to cease contact with
    Jenkins was not reasonable.   In view of these circumstances and
    the evidence of Jenkins' efforts to comply with the requests of
    the vocational counselors, we cannot say as a matter of law that
    employer's evidence sustained its burden of proof.
    III.
    Employer contends that the commission did not address its
    argument that Jenkins' misrepresentation of his physical capacity
    to the vocational rehabilitation counselors and to Dr. Pelton
    constituted an unjustified refusal to cooperate with vocational
    rehabilitation.   We disagree.   The commission considered whether
    the greenhouse and greeter jobs fell within Jenkins'
    capabilities.   The commission considered the surveillance
    videotape depicting Jenkins' activities and its effect, if any,
    upon Dr. Pelton's opinion regarding Jenkins' physical capacity.
    Indeed, the record reveals that Jenkins' physical capacity was a
    disputed factual issue.   Based upon this record, the commission,
    in its role as fact finder, was entitled to weigh this evidence
    and Dr. Pelton's opinions, and to conclude that Jenkins did not
    misrepresent his physical capacity or otherwise unjustifiably
    refuse to cooperate with vocational rehabilitation.     For these
    reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.
    Affirmed.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1595962

Filed Date: 12/10/1996

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014