New Energy Bedrooms, Inc v. Dennis K Flinchum ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                      COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present:  Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judge Elder and
    Senior Judge Hodges
    Argued by teleconference
    NEW ENERGY BEDROOMS, INC. AND
    PACIFIC INDEMNITY COMPANY
    MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
    v.   Record No. 2036-02-3                  JUDGE WILLIAM H. HODGES
    APRIL 1, 2003
    DENNIS K. FLINCHUM
    FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
    Robert C. Baker, Jr. (Dobbs & Baker, on
    brief), for appellants.
    P. Heith Reynolds (Wolfe, Williams &
    Rutherford, on brief), for appellee.
    New Energy Bedrooms, Inc. and its insurer (hereinafter
    referred to as "employer") appeal from a decision awarding
    medical benefits to Dennis K. Flinchum (claimant).       Employer
    contends the Workers' Compensation Commission erred in finding
    that claimant proved that his claim for depression constituted a
    compensable consequence of his February 9, 1999 compensable
    injury by accident and, therefore, his February 13, 2001 claim
    was timely filed.     Finding no error, we affirm the commission's
    decision.
    [The] doctrine [of compensable
    consequences], also known as the chain of
    * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
    designated for publication.
    causation rule, provides that "'where the
    chain of causation from the original
    industrial injury to the condition for which
    compensation is sought is direct, and not
    interrupted by any intervening cause
    attributable to the [employee's] own
    intentional conduct, then the subsequent
    [condition] should be compensable.'"
    Food Distributors v. Estate of Ball, 
    24 Va. App. 692
    , 697, 
    485 S.E.2d 155
    , 158 (1997) (citation omitted).   "The simplest
    application of this principle is the rule that all the medical
    consequences and sequelae that flow from the primary injury are
    compensable."   American Filtrona Co. v. Hanford, 
    16 Va. App. 159
    , 163, 
    428 S.E.2d 511
    , 513 (1993) (citation omitted)
    (emphasis added).
    On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable
    to the prevailing party below.   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 proved his depression was a
    compensable consequence of his initial February 9, 1999 injury
    by accident, the commission found as follows:
    Here, claimant's psychiatric symptoms
    developed after the work accident, as a
    consequence of his alleged back and neck
    injuries and his associated pain and
    distress. Accordingly, we conclude that the
    Deputy Commissioner erroneously applied the
    Supreme Court's holding in Shawley [v.
    Shea-Ball Constr. Corp., 
    216 Va. 442
    , 219
    - 2 -
    S.E.2d 849 (1975)], to the facts of this
    case, and that the February 13, 2001, claim
    for emotional dysfunction is not time
    barred.
    Although Dr. [Darrell F.] Powledge
    concluded that the claimant's depressive
    neurosis pre-existed the February 9, 1999,
    injury by accident, the greater weight of
    the medical evidence is that the claimant's
    depression and emotional dysfunction relates
    to the injury by accident as a compensable
    consequence. In this regard, we rely upon
    Dr. [Gary M.] Rooker's opinion that the
    claimant's depressive disorder is related by
    history to the February 9, 1999, injury by
    accident, but is not disabling due to the
    moderate level of his symptoms. The Deputy
    Commissioner's award will be modified to
    include medical coverage for the claimant's
    emotional dysfunction, but no disability
    will be awarded.
    The commission's factual findings are supported by credible
    evidence, including Dr. Rooker's medical records and opinions.
    "The fact that there is contrary evidence in the record is of no
    consequence if there is credible evidence to support the
    commission's finding."    Wagner Enters., Inc. v. Brooks, 
    12 Va. App. 890
    , 894, 
    407 S.E.2d 32
    , 35 (1991).   In its role as
    fact finder, the commission was entitled to weigh the medical
    evidence, to accept Dr. Rooker's opinion, and to reject
    Dr. Powledge's opinion.   "Questions raised by conflicting
    medical opinions must be decided by the commission."     Penley v.
    Island Creek Coal Co., 
    8 Va. App. 310
    , 318, 
    381 S.E.2d 231
    , 236
    (1989).
    - 3 -
    Because credible evidence supports the commission's finding
    that claimant's depression constituted a compensable consequence
    of his compensable February 9, 1999 injury by accident, we
    affirm the commission's decision that the February 13, 2001
    claim was timely filed.
    Furthermore, the record shows that employer did not argue
    before the commission that claimant's February 13, 2001 claim
    could not be considered a change in condition because no prior
    award existed.   Rather, employer argued that under Shawley there
    is no exception for compensable consequences and the claim for
    depression constituted a separate injury which had to be filed
    within two years of the accident.    Thus, we will not consider
    employer's argument raised for the first time on appeal that the
    claim was time barred because no prior award existed.    See Rule
    5A:18.   In addition, the record establishes that claimant filed
    an initial claim for benefits on October 16, 2000, well within
    the two-year statute of limitations.   He asserted before the
    commission that a de facto award existed, and employer, in fact,
    stipulated to the entry of an award for the period of September
    1, 1999 to April 5, 2000, a period for which employer had
    already paid compensation.   Therefore, the commission did not
    address the issue of whether a prior award existed, and we will
    not consider that issue for the first time on appeal.
    For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.
    Affirmed.
    - 4 -