Jack Jernigan v. Ryder Dedicated Logistics ( 1998 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elder, Bumgardner and Lemons
JACK JERNIGAN
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 1102-98-3 PER CURIAM
SEPTEMBER 15, 1998
RYDER DEDICATED LOGISTICS AND
RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC.
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Rhonda L. Overstreet; Lumsden, Overstreet &
Hansen, on brief), for appellant.
(William H. Fralin, Jr.; Jolly, Place,
Fralin & Prillaman, on brief), for appellees.
Jack Jernigan ("claimant") contends that the Workers'
Compensation Commission ("commission") erred in finding that he
failed to prove that his ongoing right knee symptoms and
post-May 13, 1997 disability were causally related to his
compensable July 16, 1994 injury by accident. Upon reviewing the
record and the briefs of the parties, we find that this appeal is
without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's
decision. See Rule 5A:27.
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).
"General principles of workman's compensation law provide that
'[i]n an application for review of any award on the ground of
change in condition, the burden is on the party alleging such
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
change to prove his allegations by a preponderance of the
evidence.'" Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Bateman, 4 Va. App.
459, 464, 359 S.E.2d 98, 101 (1987) (quoting Pilot Freight
Carriers, Inc. v. Reeves, 1 Va. App. 435, 438-39, 339 S.E.2d 570,
572 (1986)). Unless we can say as a matter of law that
claimant's evidence sustained his 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).
In denying claimant's application, the commission found as
follows:
Based upon this record, the Deputy
Commissioner concluded that the claimant had
failed to prove that his current disability
and medical treatment are causally related to
the July 1994 industrial accident. We agree.
Dr. [Bertram] Spetzler relates the
claimant's current condition to his
underlying osteoarthritis, and has stated
that the claimant's current problems really
could not be considered work related after
the standard healing period. We find that
the claimant has failed to prove that his
current knee condition is causally related to
the traumatic aggravation which occurred more
than three years ago, in 1994.
Based upon Dr. Spetzler's October 3, 1997 letter report and
his related medical records, which support the commission's
findings, we cannot find as a matter of law that claimant's
evidence sustained his burden of proof. Accordingly, we affirm
the commission's decision. 1
1
Based upon our holding on the causation issue, we need not
address the marketing issue.
- 2 -
Affirmed.
- 3 -