ROMINGER LEGAL
Virginia Legal Research & Resources - VA Legal Resources
Need Legal Help?
NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE
This opinion or court case is from the Courts of Virginia. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH
COURT REPORTERS
PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS
PROCESS SERVERS
DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS
EXPERT WITNESSES

 

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

 
Web Rominger Legal

Legal News - Legal Headlines

 

                 COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA



Present:  Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis


ADAMS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND
TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE COMPANY
                                                                MEMORANDUM OPINION
v.   Record No. 0642-97-3                        PER CURIAM
                                               JULY 29, 1997
CLARENCE RAY BOUSMAN


      FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION

         (Roya Palmer; Law Offices of Richard A.
         Hobson, on brief), for appellants.

         (Randy V. Cargill; Magee, Foster, Goldstein &
         Sayers, on brief), for appellee.


    Adams Construction Company and its insurer (hereinafter
collectively referred to as "employer") appeal a decision of the
Workers' Compensation Commission awarding compensation benefits
to Clarence Ray Bousman.  Employer contends that the commission
erred in finding that (1) Bousman proved a reasonable excuse for
failing to give timely notice of his March 17, 1995 injury by
accident to employer; and (2) employer failed to prove it
suffered prejudice due to Bousman's late notice.  Finding no
error, we affirm the commission's decision.
    Code   65.2-600(D) requires an employee to give written
notice of an injury by accident within thirty days of the
accident "unless reasonable excuse is made to the satisfaction of
the Commission for not giving such notice and the Commission is
satisfied that the employer has not been prejudiced thereby."  In
applying the substantially similar predecessor statute, the
Supreme Court ruled that "the burden of showing a reasonable
excuse for . . . delay in giving notice is upon the [employee,
and that] . . . the burden is upon the employer to show that [the
employer] has been prejudiced by the delay."  Maryland Cas. Co.
v. Robinson, 149 Va. 307, 311, 141 S.E. 225, 226 (1928).  See
also Lucas v. Research Analysis Corp., 209 Va. 583, 586, 166
S.E.2d 294, 296 (1969); Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Coffey, 13 Va.
App. 446, 448, 412 S.E.2d 209, 211 (1991).
    Credible evidence proved that on March 17, 1995, while
operating a front-end loader on a job site, Bousman struck a dump
truck, which had backed into his path unobserved.  Bousman
testified that his head hit the glass enclosure and he became
disoriented.  He reported the incident to the employer's safety
director.  The safety director inspected the front-end loader and
the truck for damage.  However, the safety director testified
that Bousman did not report an injury.
    Bousman also reported the accident to his supervisor on the
same day it occurred.  Although the supervisor acknowledged
receiving this notice, he testified that Bousman did not report
any injury.  Bousman testified that while he experienced a stiff
neck a day after the accident, he did not attribute it or the
onset of shoulder discomfort a short while later to the accident.
    Beginning April 16, 1995, Bousman sought medical treatment
for left shoulder pain.  He received follow-up care for his
shoulder condition on April 21 and 24, 1995 and May 7, 1995.
Bousman continued to work until May 10, 1995, when a co-worker
pulled him from the floor onto a platform.  Bousman felt a pull
in his neck and sought emergency medical treatment.  He was
treated for left shoulder injury.  On May 12, 1995, Bousman
reported the March 17, 1995 accident to Dr. B. Titus Allen, his
treating physician, who related Bousman's symptoms to that
accident.  On May 12, 1995, Bousman and his wife informed
employer of Dr. Allen's findings and opinion.
    Based upon this record, the commission found that Bousman
offered a reasonable excuse for failing to provide written notice
in accordance with Code   65.2-600 and that employer did not
prove prejudice from the delay.  
    In reviewing decisions of the commission with respect to
reasonable excuse under Code   65.2-600 (formerly 65.1-85), the
Supreme Court has stated that the principal issue is whether
evidence is offered to the satisfaction of the commission.  See
Lucas, 209 Va. at 586, 166 S.E.2d at 295.  The record contains
credible evidence from which the commission could reasonably find
that Bousman's excuse was reasonable.  Thus, we may not disturb
those findings on appeal.  See James v. Capitol Steel Constr.
Co., 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1989).
    Moreover, employer presented no evidence to show that the
twenty-six day delay beyond the thirty-day notice period
increased the severity of Bousman's injury, extended his recovery
time, or increased his absence from work.  Thus, the commission's
finding that the employer suffered no prejudice as a result of
Bousman's late notice is binding and conclusive upon this Court
on appeal.  See Tomko v. Michael's Plastering Co., 210 Va. 697,
699, 173 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1970).
    For the reasons stated, we affirm the commission's decision.
         Affirmed.
                                                                       

Ask a Lawyer

 

 

FREE CASE REVIEW BY A LOCAL LAWYER!
|
|
\/

Personal Injury Law
Accidents
Dog Bite
Legal Malpractice
Medical Malpractice
Other Professional Malpractice
Libel & Slander
Product Liability
Slip & Fall
Torts
Workplace Injury
Wrongful Death
Auto Accidents
Motorcycle Accidents
Bankruptcy
Chapter 7
Chapter 11
Business/Corporate Law
Business Formation
Business Planning
Franchising
Tax Planning
Traffic/Transportation Law
Moving Violations
Routine Infractions
Lemon Law
Manufacturer Defects
Securities Law
Securities Litigation
Shareholder Disputes
Insider Trading
Foreign Investment
Wills & Estates

Wills

Trusts
Estate Planning
Family Law
Adoption
Child Abuse
Child Custody
Child Support
Divorce - Contested
Divorce - Uncontested
Juvenile Criminal Law
Premarital Agreements
Spousal Support
Labor/Employment Law
Wrongful Termination
Sexual Harassment
Age Discrimination
Workers Compensation
Real Estate/Property Law
Condemnation / Eminent Domain
Broker Litigation
Title Litigation
Landlord/Tenant
Buying/Selling/Leasing
Foreclosures
Residential Real Estate Litigation
Commercial Real Estate Litigation
Construction Litigation
Banking/Finance Law
Debtor/Creditor
Consumer Protection
Venture Capital
Constitutional Law
Discrimination
Police Misconduct
Sexual Harassment
Privacy Rights
Criminal Law
DUI / DWI / DOI
Assault & Battery
White Collar Crimes
Sex Crimes
Homocide Defense
Civil Law
Insurance Bad Faith
Civil Rights
Contracts
Estate Planning, Wills & Trusts
Litigation/Trials
Social Security
Worker's Compensation
Probate, Will & Trusts
Intellectual Property
Patents
Trademarks
Copyrights
Tax Law
IRS Disputes
Filing/Compliance
Tax Planning
Tax Power of Attorney
Health Care Law
Disability
Elder Law
Government/Specialty Law
Immigration
Education
Trade Law
Agricultural/Environmental
IRS Issues

 


Google
Search Rominger Legal


 


LEGAL HELP FORUM - Potential Client ? Post your question.
LEGAL HELP FORUM - Attorney? Answer Questions, Maybe get hired!

NOW - CASE LAW - All 50 States - Federal Courts - Try it for FREE


 


Get Legal News
Enter your Email


Preview

We now have full text legal news
drawn from all the major sources!!

ADD A SEARCH ENGINE TO YOUR PAGE!!!

TELL A FRIEND ABOUT ROMINGER LEGAL

Ask Your Legal Question Now.

Pennsylvania Lawyer Help Board

Find An Attorney

TERMS OF USE - DISCLAIMER - LINKING POLICIES

Created and Developed by
Rominger Legal
Copyright 1997 - 2010.

A Division of
ROMINGER, INC.