0497074•Edyn Osley Guerra v. Hawk, Inc. and WCAMC Contractors Group Self Insurance Association
Edyn Osley Guerra v. Hawk, Inc. and WCAMC Contractors Group Self Insurance Association
0497074Vactapp
Gesamter Gesetzestext
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Frank, McClanahan and Senior Judge Willis EDYN OSLEY GUERRA MEMORANDUM OPINION* v. Record No. 0497-07-4 PER CURIAM JULY 24, 2007 HAWK, INC. AND WCAMC CONTRACTORS GROUP SELF INSURANCE ASSOCIATION FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Arturo H. Hernandez, on brief), for appellant. (Michael P. Del Bueno; Brandon R. Jordan; Whitt & Del Bueno, PC, on brief), for appellees. Edyn Osley Guerra (claimant) appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission denying his claim for permanent partial disability (“PPD”) benefits.1 Claimant argues the commission abused its discretion in disregarding the treating physician’s opinion. 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 Guerra v. Hawk, Inc., VWC File No. 220-50-50 (Feb. 21, 2007). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 1 The commission noted in its opinion that claimant’s Written Statement on review addressed only the issue of PPD benefits and, therefore, limited its review to that issue. While claimant raises the question on appeal of whether the commission abused its discretion in allowing employer to conduct and file an Independent Medical Examination, he did not obtain any ruling on that question from the full commission on review. Accordingly, there is nothing for us to review, and we will not consider that question for the first time on appeal. See Green v. Warwick Plumbing & Heating Corp., 5 Va. App. 409, 413, 364 S.E.2d 4, 6 (1988); Rule 5A:18.
- 2 - in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. Affirmed.
Was bedeutet dieser Text für Ihre Situation?
Kostenlose und unverbindliche Beratung
Schildern Sie uns Ihre Situation. Unser Team meldet sich per E-Mail bei Ihnen für Ihre Beratung.
Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.