Babcock & Wilcox and Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v. Paul Moran

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Alston, Chafin and Senior Judge Haley
BABCOCK & WILCOX AND
INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF
NORTH AMERICA
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. 	Record No. 0378-15-3 	PER CURIAM
JULY 14, 2015
PAUL MORAN
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Scott C. Ford; McCandlish Holton, PC, on brief), for appellants.
(Robert E. Evans; Monica Taylor Monday; Gentry Locke Rakes &
Moore, on brief), for appellee.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
Babcock & Wilcox and Indemnity Insurance Company of America (collectively
employer) appeal the decision by the Workers’ Compensation Commission (commission)
awarding Paul Moran (claimant) medical benefits for a traumatic brain injury, temporary total
disability benefits effective March 5, 2014, and wage loss benefits prior to April 21, 2014.
Employer argues the commission erred in finding that (1) claimant suffered a causally-related
brain injury; (2) the opinions of Drs. Joseph Conley, Gregory O’Shanick, and David Ross
outweighed the contrary opinion of Dr. William Peck; (3) the treatment provided by Drs. Conley
and O’Shanick was reasonable and necessary, causally-related, and authorized, and a proper
referral of physicians was maintained; (4) claimant’s travel for treatment with Dr. O’Shanick was
reasonable; (5) claimant was entitled to wage loss benefits prior to April 21, 2014 and in
awarding payment of temporary total disability benefits effective March 5, 2014; and
UNPUBLISHED

- 2 -
(6) claimant was totally disabled from employment after April 21, 2014 and in awarding ongoing
temporary total disability benefits. 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 opinion. See Moran v. Babcock & Wilcox, JCN VA00000558282 (Feb. 3,
2015). 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.