Medela, Inc. and Arrowood Indemnity Company, etc. v. Kelly Antekeier

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Petty, Chafin and Senior Judge Annunziata
MEDELA, INC. AND
ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY
AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO
FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE
CO. OF CONNECTICUT
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. 	Record No. 1086-14-4 	PER CURIAM
OCTOBER 7, 2014
KELLY ANTEKEIER
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Jessica A. Gorman; Kalbaugh, Pfund & Messersmith, on brief), for
appellants.
(James E. Swiger, on brief), for appellee.
Medela, Inc. and Arrowood Indemnity Company, as successor in interest to Fire &
Insurance Co. of Connecticut, its insurer, (collectively “employer”) appeal from a May 14, 2014
opinion of the Workers’ Compensation Commission (“commission”). The commission affirmed
a deputy commissioner’s opinion finding employer responsible for certain necessary medical
treatment causally related to Kelly Antekeier’s December 13, 1999 industrial accident. On
appeal, employer contends the commission erred by (1) “affirming that the claimant’s ongoing
treatment with trigger point injections, and the requested Botox therapy, is reasonable, necessary,
and causally related to the work related accident of December 13, 1999,” (2) “holding that the
claimant’s requested total right knee replacement surgery was causally related to the industrial
accident,” and (3) “holding that the claimant’s left knee injury and accident which took place on
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
UNPUBLISHED

- 2 -
or about April 21, 2013, is a compensable consequence to the work accident of December 13,
1999.”
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 Antekeier v. Medela, Inc., JCN
2035580 (May 14, 2014). 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.