Summit Rehabilitation, P.C. and American Zurich Insurance Company v. Christine S. Edwards ( 2008 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Senior Judge Bumgardner
SUMMIT REHABILITATION, P.C. AND
AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 2676-07-1 PER CURIAM
MARCH 11, 2008
CHRISTINE S. EDWARDS
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Kevin D. Sharp; Taylor & Walker, P.C., on brief), for appellants.
(Ann K. Sullivan; Melissa Morris Picco; Crenshaw, Ware & Martin,
P.L.C., on brief), for appellee.
Summit Rehabilitation, P.C. and its insurer (hereinafter referred to as “employer”) appeal
a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission awarding compensation benefits to
Christine S. Edwards (claimant). Employer argues the commission erred by finding that
claimant proved her March 7, 2006 injury by accident (1) arose out of her employment; and
(2) occurred in the course of her employment. In its October 12, 2007 opinion, the commission
specifically stated that employer’s assertion on review was that claimant’s accident did not arise
out of the employment, and addressed that sole issue. Accordingly, because the commission did
not address the “in the course of employment” issue on review, we are barred from considering it
on appeal. See Rule 5A:18; see also Kendrick v. Nationwide Homes, Inc., 4 Va. App. 189, 192,
355 S.E.2d 347, 349 (1987). 1
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
1
To the extent that employer’s written statement on review could be construed to raise
the “in the course of employment” issue, employer failed to obtain a ruling from the commission
on review on that issue by filing a motion for reconsideration or rehearing. Thus, we are barred
With respect to the “arising out of the employment” issue, we have reviewed the record
and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Edwards v. Summit
Rehabilitation, P.C., VWC File No. 227-80-33 (Oct. 12, 2007). We dispense with oral argument
and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code
§ 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.
from considering it on appeal by Rule 5A:18. See Williams v. Gloucester Sheriff’s Dep’t, 266
Va. 409, 411, 587 S.E.2d 546, 548 (2003). Employer does not argue that we should invoke the
exceptions to Rule 5A:18, and we decline to do so sua sponte. Edwards v. Commonwealth, 41
Va. App. 752, 761, 589 S.E.2d 444, 448 (2003) (en banc).
-2-