Signet Banking Corp v. Deborah Meade-Cromer ( 1995 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
SIGNET BANKING CORPORATION
AND
AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 0805-95-2 PER CURIAM
SEPTEMBER 26, 1995
DEBORAH MEADE-CROMER
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Lynne Jones Blain; Michelle P. Wiltshire; Morris and
Morris, on briefs), for appellants.
(Deborah Meade-Cromer, pro se, on brief).
Signet Banking Corporation and its insurer (hereinafter
collectively referred to as "employer") contend that the Workers'
Compensation Commission erred in finding that the employer was
responsible for the cost of certain treatment rendered to Deborah
Meade-Cromer by Dr. Terry Whipple, an orthopedic surgeon. 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.
Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990).
"Whether the employer is responsible for medical expenses . . .
depends upon: (1) whether the medical service was causally
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
related to the industrial injury; (2) whether such other medical
attention was necessary; and (3) whether the treating physician
made a referral . . . [of] the patient." Volvo White Truck Corp.
v. Hedge, 1 Va. App. 195, 199, 336 S.E.2d 903, 906 (1985).
The parties do not dispute that Dr. Whipple's treatment was
causally related to Meade-Cromer's industrial accident and that
it was necessary. Addressing the referral, the commission found
as follows:
We consider Dr. [Forrest] Jessee's
September 2, 1994 letter a valid referral.
It is clear that in Dr. Jessee's opinion,
Meade-Cromer was in need of surgical
intervention that Dr. Whipple could
provide. While Meade-Cromer may have
initially treated with Dr. Whipple on her
own initiative, on September 2, 1994, her
treating physician, Dr. Jessee, officially
referred her to Dr. Whipple.
Dr. Jessee's September 2, 1994 letter provides credible
evidence to support the commission's finding that he made a valid
referral of Meade-Cromer to Dr. Whipple. We find no merit in
employer's argument that because Meade-Cromer had previously
sought unauthorized treatment from Dr. Whipple, for which
employer was not held responsible, Dr. Jessee's later referral
was not valid.
Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
2