Esperanza M. Garcia-Guzman v. Celina Cleaning Services, Inc. and The Uninsured Employers' Fund

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Petty, AtLee and Senior Judge Clements
ESPERANZA M. GARCIA-GUZMAN
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. 	Record No. 0851-15-4 	PER CURIAM
OCTOBER 20, 2015
CELINA CLEANING SERVICES, INC. AND
THE UNINSURED EMPLOYERS’ FUND
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Brian Patrick Riley; Antezana & Antezana, LLC, on briefs), for
appellant.
(Richard F. Boddie; Slocum & Boddie, P.C., on brief), for appellee
Celina Cleaning Services, Inc.
(Joshua M. Wulf; David A. Obuchowicz; Midkiff, Muncie & Ross,
P.C., on brief), for appellee The Uninsured Employers’ Fund.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
Esperanza M. Garcia-Guzman appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation
Commission denying her claim for benefits and finding that she failed to establish her injury
arose out of her employment. On appeal, claimant contends the commission erred in: (1) relying
on her failure to describe any defect or substance on the floor where the accident occurred as a
reason for finding she failed to sustain her burden in proving her injury arose out of her
employment; (2) relying on her failure to describe the cause of her fall to Celina Cleaning
Services, Inc. or to medical professionals as a reason for finding she failed to sustain her burden
of proof; and (3) finding that the only evidence supporting her version of events was her
uncorroborated testimony where there was an adverse witness who provided corroborating
UNPUBLISHED

- 2 -
testimony for her version of events. Claimant also asserts she may raise these assignments of
error on appeal pursuant to Code § 8.01-384(A).
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 Garcia-Guzman v. Celina Cleaning Servs., Inc., VWC File No. VA02000014786
(Apr. 30, 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.