Marvin Marable v. Stafford Detention Center/ Commonwealth of Virginia

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Kelsey, Beales and Senior Judge Clements
MARVIN MARABLE
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. 	Record No. 2282-13-2 	PER CURIAM
JUNE 17, 2014
STAFFORD DETENTION CENTER/
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Marvin D. Marable, pro se, on briefs).
(Mark R. Herring, Attorney General; Rhodes B. Ritenour, Deputy
Attorney General; Peter R. Messitt, Senior Assistant Attorney
General; Scott John Fitzgerald, Senior Assistant Attorney General,
on brief), for appellee.
Marvin Marable (claimant) appeals rulings of the Workers’ Compensation Commission.
Claimant alleges that the commission erred: 1) in refusing to award him temporary total
disability benefits (TTD) and wages for July 1, 2009 through March 23, 2010 because he had not
marketed his residual capacity to work; 2) in not awarding him TTD and lifetime medical
benefits for a compensable injury by accident to his right shoulder, right hand, right wrist, and
right arm; and 3) in not awarding him TTD and lifetime medical benefits for a compensable
injury by accident associated with blunt force trauma to the chest and abdomen, and related
conditions to the left leg and foot, stress and anxiety, stress gastritis and incontinence, and
post-traumatic stress disorder.1 We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinions and
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
1 Claimant also argues that the commission erred in denying him his constitutional right
to equal protection. Claimant did not raise this issue before the commission. “No ruling of
the . . . Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission will be considered as a basis for reversal
UNPUBLISHED

- 2 -
find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
commission in its opinions. See Marable v. Stafford Detention Ctr./Commonwealth of Virginia,
VWC File No. VA0000068666 (June 26, 2012 and Oct. 31, 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.
unless an objection was stated with reasonable certainty at the time of the ruling, except for good
cause shown or to enable the Court of Appeals to attain the ends of justice.” Rule 5A:18. Rule
5A:18 applies to bar even constitutional claims. See Deal v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 157,
161, 421 S.E.2d 897, 900 (1992). Accordingly, Rule 5A:18 bars our consideration of this issue
on appeal.
Although Rule 5A:18 allows exceptions for good cause or
to meet the ends of justice, appellant does not argue that we should
invoke these exceptions. See e.g., Redman v. Commonwealth, 25
Va. App. 215, 221, 487 S.E.2d 269, 272 (1997) (“In order to avail
oneself of the exception, a defendant must affirmatively show that a
miscarriage of justice has occurred, not that a miscarriage might
have occurred.” (emphasis added)). We will not consider, sua
sponte, a “miscarriage of justice” argument under Rule 5A:18.
Edwards v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 752, 761, 589 S.E.2d 444, 448 (2003) (en banc).