Maria Angela Cook v. Volvo Fredericksburg, et al.

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Alston, Decker and Senior Judge Coleman
MARIA ANGELA COOK
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. 	Record No. 0581-14-2 	PER CURIAM
SEPTEMBER 30, 2014
VOLVO OF FREDERICKSBURG AND
VIRGINIA COMMERCE GROUP
SELF-INSURANCE CORPORATION
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Maria Angela Cook, pro se, on briefs).
(J. David Griffin; Winchester Law Group, P.C., on brief), for
appellees.
Maria Angela Cook, claimant, appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation
Commission finding that claimant failed to prove she developed neutropenia as a compensable
consequence of her work accident. On appeal, claimant contends the commission erred by
concluding “there is not a causal connection between [her] Workers’ Compensation injury and
the development of neutropenia.” Claimant also asserts “the presentation of evidence of [her]
medical history was inaccurate and it has caused the Full Commission to err[] in [its] judgment
[of] her case” and she “provided evidence stating that she had reached maximum medical
improvement for the scarring on her left thigh as instructed by [the deputy commissioner], but
the Full Commission did not render judgment for the scarring.” We have reviewed the record
and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
UNPUBLISHED

- 2 -
for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Cook v. Volvo of
Fredericksburg, VWC File No. VA00000683021 (Feb. 27, 2014).
Concerning claimant’s assignment of error addressing disability benefits for scarring on
her left thigh, footnote one of the opinion of the commission provides:
The claimant also sought permanent partial disability
benefits for scarring on her left thigh. Because there was no
medical evidence that the claimant had reached maximum medical
improvement, the Deputy Commissioner noted that the
Commission would retain “jurisdiction over the permanency issue
until it is ripe for adjudication, if at all.”
Id. at 2 n1.
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.
We deny employer’s motions to dismiss the appeal, strike the opening brief, and strike
claimant’s appendix designation.
Affirmed.