Ricky D. Howell v. Wade�s Supermarkets 42, et al.

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Humphreys, McCullough and Senior Judge Bumgardner
RICKY D. HOWELL
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. 	Record No. 1985-13-3 	PER CURIAM
FEBRUARY 25, 2014
WADE’S SUPERMARKETS 42,
ARGONAUT MIDWEST INSURANCE COMPANY,
JWB CONTRACTORS LLC AND
SELECTIVE WAY INSURANCE COMPANY
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Seth D. Scott; Kalfus & Nachman, P.C., on brief), for appellant.
(S. Vernon Priddy III; Cecil H. Creasy, Jr.; Two Rivers Law Group,
on brief), for appellees Wade’s Supermarkets 42 and Argonaut
Midwest Insurance Company.
(Richard D. Lucas; Lucas & Kite, PLC, on brief), for appellees
JWB Contractors LLC and Selective Way Insurance Company.
Ricky D. Howell appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding
that the statute of limitations barred his claims. In addition, Wade’s Supermarkets 42 and
Argonaut Midwest Insurance Company argue in an assignment of cross-error that the
commission erred in not addressing their argument “that there is no provision for a claimant to
leap over an insured direct employer to seek to recover against a statutory employer.” We have
reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal and assignment of
cross-error are without merit.1 Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
1 In its opinion addressing the argument now advanced by the assignment of cross-error,
the commission stated: “the claimant asserts that recovery against Wade’s alone would be
appropriate because of an issue of notice to his direct employer. Because we find these claims
untimely, we do not reach any of these assignments of error.”
UNPUBLISHED

- 2 -
in its final opinion. See Howell v. Wade’s Supermarkets 42, VWC File No. JCN
VA02000010704 (Sept. 11, 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.