Louisiana Chemical Dismantling Company and Great Divide Insurance Company v. Charles Russell, III

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Petty, AtLee and Retired Judge Felton
LOUISIANA CHEMICAL DISMANTLING COMPANY
AND GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY
MEMORANDUM OPINION
v. 	Record No. 0506-16-1 	PER CURIAM
JULY 26, 2016
CHARLES RUSSELL, III
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Michael P. Del Bueno; Megan Kerwin Clark; Whitt & Del Bueno,
PC, on briefs), for appellants.
(Gregory E. Camden; Montagna Klein Camden, LLP, on brief), for
appellee.
 Retired Judge Felton took part in the consideration of this case by designation pursuant
to Code § 17.1-400(D).
 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
Louisiana Chemical Dismantling Company and Great Divide Insurance Company
(LCD herein) appeal a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that Charles
Russell, III, was entitled to temporary total disability benefits from April 10, 2015 and
continuing. In support of this appeal, LCD argues the Commission erred by (1) finding Russell
proved he was totally disabled from all employment beginning April 10, 2015 and he had no
duty to market his residual work capacity; (2) finding Russell was totally disabled continuing
from April 22, 2015 when he was out of work solely to administer medication every two hours;
and (3) awarding total temporary disability benefits from April 10, 2015, when Russell was on
notice that he could perform light-duty work and he did not establish efforts to market his
residual work capacity.
UNPUBLISHED

- 2 -
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 Russell v. Louisiana Chem. Dismantling Co., VWC File No. VA02000014699
(Feb. 24, 2016). 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.