B R D Coal Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Rufus Edward Baldwin

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Frank, Alston and Senior Judge Coleman
B R D COAL COMPANY AND
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. 	Record No. 1165-10-3 	PER CURIAM
NOVEMBER 2, 2010
RUFUS EDWARD BALDWIN
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(John R. Sigmond; Penn, Stuart & Eskridge, on brief), for
appellants.
(John J. Gifford; Browning, Lamie & Gifford, on brief), for appellee.
B R D Coal Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (collectively,
“employer,”) appeal a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission. Employer contends
the commission erred in (1) finding claimant was under an award for permanent total disability
benefits; (2) affirming the deputy commissioner’s decision to reform the commission’s June 4,
1990 award to reflect an award for permanent total disability benefits; (3) finding the payment of
benefits beyond the expiration of the 500 weeks provided sufficient evidence of employer’s
intent to provide an award for permanent total disability benefits; and (4) finding the actions of
employer evidenced its intent for the June 4, 1990 agreement to provide an award for permanent
total disability benefits. Claimant presented four additional assignments of error. He contends
the trial court erred in (1) failing to find the award of permanent total disability benefits was also
supported by the doctrine of de facto awards; (2) failing to find the award of permanent total
disability benefits was also supported by the doctrine of estoppel; (3) failing to find the award of
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.

- 2 -
permanent total disability benefits was also supported by the doctrine of imposition; and
(4) concluding claimant failed to preserve his arguments that the doctrines of estoppel,
imposition, and de facto awards support the award for permanent total disability benefits.1 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
Baldwin v. B R D Coal Co., VWC File No. 145-53-24 (Apr. 29, 2010). 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.
1 While claimant posits four cross assignments of error, only assignment four alleges
error. Assignments one, two, and three are alternate arguments supporting the award of
permanent total disability and support assignment four. Since we found no error in the
commission’s award, it is not necessary to address claimant’s assignment of error four.