William F. Draper v. Goodwill Industries, etc

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick
WILLIAM F. DRAPER
v. Record No. 2057-96-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION *
PER CURIAM
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF JANUARY 21, 1997
HAMPTON ROADS, INC. AND
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(William F. Draper, pro se, on briefs).
(Patricia C. Arrighi; Law Offices of E. Wayne
Powell, on brief), for appellees.
William F. Draper (claimant) contends that the Workers'
Compensation Commission (commission) erred in refusing to hold
Goodwill Industries of Hampton Roads, Inc. (employer) responsible
for the cost of medical treatment rendered to claimant by Dr.
J. Howard Shegog. 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).
Unless we can say as a matter of law that claimant's evidence
sustained his burden of proving that Dr. Shegog's medical
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
treatment was causally related to claimant's compensable
September 6, 1994 back injury, the commission's findings are
binding and conclusive upon us. Tomko v. Michael's Plastering
Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1970).
In denying claimant medical benefits for treatment rendered
by Dr. Shegog, the commission made the following findings:
The claimant carries the burden of
establishing the causal nexus between his
injury by accident and the medical treatment
for which payment is sought. He has not met
this burden here. There is nothing in the
medical record of Dr. Shegog to establish
that the treatment rendered or prescribed by
him was causally related to the accident.
His treatment focused on complaints of left
flank and buttock pain. Dr. Shegog in no way
links these complaints to the claimant's
compensable back injury.
Moreover, Dr. [Richard] Easton very
clearly states that the complaints for which
he treated the claimant were related to
osteoarthritis and degenerative joint
disease. Dr. Easton opined that these same
complaints were not related to the accident.
Therefore, to the extent that he referred
the claimant for treatment by Dr. Shegog, he
did so for unrelated arthritic complaints.
The medical records and opinions of Drs. Shegog and Easton
support the commission's findings. Based upon the lack of any
persuasive medical evidence establishing a causal connection
between claimant's compensable September 6, 1994 back injury and
Dr. Shegog's treatment, we cannot find as a matter of law that
1
claimant's evidence sustained his burden of proof. Accordingly,
1
In rendering our decision, we did not consider any evidence
which was not before the commission when it rendered its
decision.
2
we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
3