Inova Fairfax Hospital, Inova Health System Foundation, Inc. and et al. v. Nezha Alaoui

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges McClanahan, Haley and Senior Judge Willis
INOVA FAIRFAX HOSPITAL,
INOVA HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION, INC. AND
PMA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. 	Record No. 2233-10-4 	PER CURIAM
MARCH 8, 2011
NEZHA ALAOUI
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Joshua M. Wulf; Angela F. Gibbs; Midkiff, Muncie & Ross, P.C.,
on brief), for appellants.
(Jin Kim; Chasen Boscolo, on brief), for appellee.
Inova Fairfax Hospital, Inova Health System Foundation, Inc. and PMA Management
Corporation (collectively “employer”) appeal a decision of the Workers’ Compensation
Commission. Employer asserts the commission erred in (1) finding claimant proved her
disability, and specifically, the recurrence of post-traumatic headaches, was causally related to
her February 12, 2008 workplace injury; (2) finding any disability and medical treatment since
August 31, 2009, was causally related to claimant’s workplace injury; (3) relying on Dr. Rajesh
K. Sethi’s medical opinions, diagnosis, and treatment to conclude claimant’s disability and
medical treatment after August 31, 2009, were causally related to her workplace injury rather
than relying on the medical opinion of Dr. John W. Cochran, who reached the opposite
conclusion; (4) relying on Dr. Sethi’s medical conclusions when his reports failed to explain the
recurrence of symptoms after an eight-month lapse in treatment for any symptoms; (5) failing to
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.

- 2 -
deny the claim based on inconsistencies in claimant’s testimony that suggested other possible
causes of her headaches and the duration of symptoms; and (6) failing to deny the claim where
all of claimant’s objective tests have been normal and the finding of disability was based solely
on claimant’s subjective complaints. 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 Alaoui v. Inova Fairfax Hosp., VWC File No.
237-49-81 (Sept. 22, 2010). 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.