The Uninsured Employer�s Fund v. Laquita Edna Opperman and Vicky Little t/a Little Cleaner

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Humphreys, McCullough and Senior Judge Bumgardner
THE UNINSURED EMPLOYER’S FUND
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. 	Record No. 0008-14-1 	PER CURIAM
MAY 20, 2014
LAQUITA EDNA OPPERMAN AND
VICKY LITTLE t/a LITTLE CLEANER
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Tara L. Chadbourn; Poole Mahoney, P.C., on briefs), for appellant.
(Zenobia J. Peoples, on brief), for appellee Laquita Edna Opperman.
No brief for appellee Vicky Little t/a Little Cleaner.
The Uninsured Employer’s Fund (Fund) appeals from a December 2, 2013 order of the
Workers’ Compensation Commission affirming a deputy commissioner’s opinion finding that
Laquita Edna Opperman (claimant) remains disabled from her October 31, 2008 work accident.
On appeal, Fund contends the commission erred by (1) “finding that Claimant remains disabled
as a result of the October 31, 2008 industrial accident,” (2) “giving weight to the opinions of
Claimant’s treating physician, Dr. Eric Goldberg, because Dr. Goldberg’s opinions lacked
credibility and his opinion that Claimant remains disabled is impeached by his own written
opinions and was not based on a physical examination,” (3) “failing to find that any aggravation
of Claimant’s September 21, 1993 accident at the Norfolk Naval shipyard caused by the October
31, 2008 accident has resolved and Claimant has returned to pre-injury baseline,” (4) “failing to
find that any disability Claimant may have is unrelated to the October 31, 2008 accident and is,
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
UNPUBLISHED

- 2 -
instead, caused by the September 21, 1993 Shipyard accident for which Claimant is still
receiving medical benefits and wages,” and (5) “discounting the corroborated medical opinions
of Mark Ross, M.D. that the Claimant is no longer disabled and failed to consider Claimant’s
Functional Capacity Evaluation results.”
Upon reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that this appeal is without
merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission’s decision. Rule 5A:27. We affirm
for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Opperman v. Vicky Little t/a
Little Cleaner, VWC File No. VA01002421442 (Dec. 2, 2013). 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.