0842062•City of Richmond Public Schools and CompManagement, Inc. v. Catrina Yvette Lassiter
City of Richmond Public Schools and CompManagement, Inc. v. Catrina Yvette Lassiter
0842062Vactapp
Gesamter Gesetzestext
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Senior Judge Bumgardner CITY OF RICHMOND PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND COMPMANAGEMENT, INC. MEMORANDUM OPINION* v. Record No. 0842-06-2 PER CURIAM AUGUST 15, 2006 CATRINA YVETTE LASSITER FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (M. Janet Palmer; Harrell & Chambliss, LLP, on brief), for appellants. (James B. Thorsen; Thorsen & Scher, L.L.P., on brief), for appellee. City of Richmond Public Schools and its insurer, CompManagement, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “employer”) appeal a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that Catrina Yvette Lassiter (claimant) proved she sustained a compensable injury by accident on March 4, 2005, when she received an electrical shock while working, which resulted in causally related psychiatric symptoms. 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 Lassiter v. Richmond (City of) School Board, VWC File No. 223-08-10 (Mar. 3, 2006). 1 We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 1 We note that the commission deemed employer’s assignments of error waived and abandoned due to employer’s failure to timely file a written statement to support its Request for Review. However, notwithstanding that ruling, the commission proceeded to affirm the deputy commissioner’s findings with respect to the injury by accident issue, ruling in summary fashion “that the record supports the determinations that the claimant sustained a compensable injury by accident, an electrical shock, with resulting psychiatric injuries.”
- 2 - 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.
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.