Laurence F. Hannan, III v. Thorsen Construction and Accident Fund Insurance Company

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Beales, Russell and Senior Judge Frank
UNPUBLISHED
LAURENCE F. HANNAN, III
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. Record No. 0258-15-4 PER CURIAM
AUGUST 18, 2015
THORSEN CONSTRUCTION AND
ACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE COMPANY
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Laurence F. Hannan, III, pro se, on brief).
(Brandi R. Howell; Franklin & Prokopik, P.C., on brief), for
appellees.
Laurence F. Hannan, III, appellant, appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation
Commission awarding medical benefits for Dr. Lincoln German’s treatment of appellant’s
thoracic spine, denying medical benefits for Dr. German’s treatment of appellant’s right knee,
and denying wage loss benefits to appellant. On appeal, appellant contends the commission
erred in finding: (1) he did not suffer a disability that was causally related to the compensable
occupational injury that occurred on November 16, 2011; (2) he did not establish an awardable
disability within the applicable statute of limitations; (3) any disability suffered prior to February
17, 2014 was not causally related to the industrial accident; and (4) he was denied his legal rights
under the law. Employer filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the appeal should be dismissed
for appellant’s failure to comply with various requirements in the Rules of the Supreme Court
related to the filing of the appendix and/or the opening brief of appellant.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
Assuming without deciding that the matter is properly before us,1 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 Hannan v. Thorsen
Construction Co., VWC File No. VA00000542190 (Jan. 21, 2015). 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.
1
Having denied appellant’s appeal on the merits, we do not reach the issues raised by
employer’s motion to dismiss.
-2-