Eton A. Thomas v. LSG Sky Chefs Deutsche Lufthansa and Liberty Insurance Corporation ( 2014 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Alston, Decker and Senior Judge Coleman
UNPUBLISHED
ETON A. THOMAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. Record No. 0041-14-4 PER CURIAM
MAY 20, 2014
LSG SKY CHEFS DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA AND
LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Eton A. Thomas, pro se, on brief).
(Gregory V. Chestnut, on brief), for appellee.
Eton A. Thomas (claimant) appeals the decision of the Workers’ Compensation
Commission (commission) dismissing claimant’s request for review of the deputy
commissioner’s opinion because it lacked jurisdiction since he failed to timely file his request for
review. On appeal, claimant argues that (1) the attorney for LSG Sky Chefs (employer)
misrepresented to the deputy commissioner that claimant was born in Guatemala, but he was
born in British Guiana; (2) employer’s attorney’s arguments to the deputy commissioner were
based upon claimant’s lifestyle in Guatemala, but he never lived in Guatemala; (3) employer’s
attorney manipulated the testimony before the deputy commissioner by falsely claiming
claimant’s life in Guatemala caused a pre-existing eye condition; (4) the deputy commissioner
erred in finding that claimant’s pterygium was caused by exposure to sunlight in Guatemala and
not from working in the sun on the roofs of employer’s buildings; (5) the commission erred in
denying claimant a full and fair hearing; (6) the commission erred in not considering all the
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
circumstances and the direct causal relationship to establish the true origin of claimant’s
pterygium; (7) the commission erred in failing to issue subpoenas for the inspection logs of
claimant’s job site; (8) the deputy commissioner erred in relying upon United Airlines v. Walter,
24 Va. App. 394, 482 S.E.2d 849 (1997); and (9) the commission erred in determining claimant
failed to timely file a request for review and in dismissing his case.
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 Thomas v. LSG Sky Chefs, VWC File No. VA00000477872 (Dec. 9, 2013). 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.
-2-