William T. Bowling/Ted Bowling Construction v. Joshua Creel

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Bumgardner, Humphreys and Senior Judge Hodges
WILLIAM T. BOWLING/
TED BOWLING CONSTRUCTION
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. 	Record No. 0178-04-2 	PER CURIAM
JUNE 1, 2004
JOSHUA CREEL
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(William T. Bowling, pro se, on brief).
(William C. Carr, Jr.; Emroch & Kilduff, LLP, on brief), for
appellee.
William T. Bowling/Ted Bowling Construction (“employer”) appeals a decision of the
Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that employer failed to sustain its burden of
proving that it did not have three or more employees regularly in service and was, therefore, not
subject to the Workers’ Compensation Act. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s
opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
commission in its final opinion. See Creel v. Bowling/Ted Bowling Construction, VWC File
No. 211-36-95 (Dec. 22, 2003). 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:27.1
Affirmed.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
1 Because we summarily affirm the commission’s decision, we will not address the
arguments raised by Creel with respect to employer’s failure to comply with the requirements of
Rule 5A:25.