CVS #00871/CVS of Virginia, Inc. and GAB Robins North America, Inc. v. Darlene A. Brooks

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges McClanahan, Haley and Senior Judge Willis
CVS #00871/CVS OF VIRGINIA, INC. AND
GAB ROBINS NORTH AMERICA, INC.
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. 	Record No. 1373-10-4 	PER CURIAM
NOVEMBER 23, 2010
DARLENE A. BROOKS
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Michael P. Del Bueno; Corey R. Pollard; Whitt & Del Bueno,
P.C., on briefs), for appellants.
(Craig A. Brown; Alaina M. Dartt; Ashcraft & Gerel, LLP, on
brief), for appellee.
CVS #00871/CVS of Virginia, Inc., and its insurer, GAB Robins North America, Inc.
(employer) appeal a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission. Employer contends
the commission erred (1) in relying on a doctor’s medical opinion that was speculative; (2) in
assigning great weight to Dr. Richard P. Erwin’s opinion that Darlene Brooks (claimant)
continued to have foot pain related to her May 18, 2007 workplace accident; (3) when it refused
to give more weight to the medical opinions of Drs. Edward A. Peck, III, Arthur I. Broder, and
Richard L. Wilson, Jr., who concluded that neither the MRI results, physical examination nor the
neurological examination of Brooks supported Dr. Erwin’s medical opinion that claimant
remained disabled; (4) in concluding employer did not meet its evidentiary burden of terminating
or suspending claimant’s outstanding award for benefits when it presented evidence from several
doctors who concluded claimant was capable of returning to her pre-injury job, her current
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.

- 2 -
disability did not result from her workplace accident, and her pain was not based upon any
objective basis; (5) in failing to conclude claimant’s pain was not consistent with malingering
and secondary pain; (6) in finding Dr. Erwin provided unwavering testimony that claimant
suffered from cervical spine scar tissue that was causing her pain instead of concluding
Dr. Erwin’s testimony was “all theory”; (7) in failing to find claimant’s complaints of pain were
insincere, incredible, and not the result of her May 18, 2007 accident; and (8) in failing to
conclude claimant would receive secondary gain from magnifying her symptoms.
We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and affirm for the reasons
stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Brooks v. CVS VA #00871, VWC File No.
233-79-19 (June 4, 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.