0655114•Christopher Michael Lam v. Town of Lurary Law Enforcement, et al.
Christopher Michael Lam v. Town of Lurary Law Enforcement, et al.
0655114Vactapp
Gesamter Gesetzestext
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges McClanahan,* Haley and Senior Judge Willis CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL LAM MEMORANDUM OPINION** v. Record No. 0655-11-4 PER CURIAM AUGUST 16, 2011 TOWN OF LURARY LAW ENFORCEMENT AND VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL GROUP SELF-INSURANCE ASSOCIATION FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Arthur L. Goff; Bushey, Cave & Goff, on brief), for appellant. (William S. Sands, Jr.; Duncan & Hopkins, P.C., on brief), for appellees. Christopher Michael Lam appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission. He asserts the commission erred in (1) affirming the decision of the deputy commissioner that he abandoned his claim for a shoulder injury; (2) affirming the decision of the deputy commissioner that his claim was barred by the statute of limitations; (3) addressing the factual issue of causation because the decision that the claim had been time-barred was factual and dispositive, and the adjudication of the issue of causation was gratuitous and unnecessary; (4) addressing the factual issue of causation without providing notice to him; and (5) concluding there was no persuasive evidence he suffered a left shoulder injury in the accident. 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 Lam v. * Justice McClanahan participated in the decision of this case prior to her investiture as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia ** Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
- 2 - Town of Luray Law Enforcement, VWC File No. 234-59-44 (Mar. 2, 2011). 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.
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.