Ronald L. Cook v. Nabisco, Inc. and American Protection Insurance Company

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Humphreys, Beales and Senior Judge Fitzpatrick
RONALD L. COOK
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. 	Record No. 1502-06-2 	PER CURIAM
NOVEMBER 21, 2006
NABISCO, INC. AND
AMERICAN PROTECTION INSURANCE COMPANY
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Ronald Cook, pro se, on briefs).
(Calvin W. Fowler, Jr.; Misty D. Evans; Williams Mullen, on brief),
for appellees.
Ronald L. Cook (claimant) appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation
Commission finding that (1) the deputy commissioner did not refuse to accept evidence;
(2) claimant failed to prove he was entitled to reimbursement from employer for mileage
expenses related to treatment rendered by Dr. Dubats; (3) claimant’s claim for temporary total
disability benefits was barred by the limitations period contained in Code § 65.2-708; (4) the
medical evidence failed to support claimant’s allegation that he cannot return to work as a result
of his compensable back injury; (5) at a minimum, claimant’s physicians released him to light
duty, and he presented no evidence that he marketed his residual work capacity; (6) assuming
arguendo that claimant sought compensation benefits for an alleged psychological disability,
such claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata and/or the statute of limitations; and (7) the
record did not “reveal evidence of any fraud, harassment, or perjury having been perpetuated
against claimant, against the agency by the employer, or as a result of the agency’s
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.

- 2 -
determinations.” 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 Cook v. Nabisco, Inc., VWC File No. 206-42-37 (May 17, 2006). 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. 1
Affirmed.
1 Notwithstanding the content of claimant’s briefs, in rendering this decision, we have
only considered the evidence and issues that were properly before the commission when it
rendered its decision and which were preserved for appellate review.