King's Market v. Porter

Decision Date15 June 1984
Docket NumberNo. 830790,830790
Citation317 S.E.2d 146,227 Va. 478
PartiesKING'S MARKET, et al. v. Anna R. PORTER. Record
CourtVirginia Supreme Court

Mosby G. Perrow, III, Lynchburg (Caskie, Frost, Hobbs, Thompson, Knakal & Alford, Lynchburg, on brief), for appellants.

Robert E. Tinsley, Jr., Amherst (Tinsley & Tinsley, Amherst, on brief), for appellee.

Present: All the Justices.

POFF, Justice.

The sole question presented by this employer's appeal from a worker's compensation award is whether the Industrial Commission erred in finding that the employee had borne the burden of proof to establish a compensable change in condition.

On April 29, 1979, Mrs. Anna R. Porter was injured in an accident which arose out of and during the course of her employment with King's Market. Her injury was diagnosed as "[l]umbo-thoracic spinal strain with nerve root irritation" resulting in "[i]ntercostal neuralgia, [b]rachial neuralgia". King's insurance carrier, Pacific Employer's Insurance Company, paid Mrs. Porter compensation until May 13, 1979 when she returned to work. This was the first of four periods for which temporary disability compensation was paid pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement approved by the Commission.

In October 1979, Mrs. Porter consulted Dr. James Foster, an orthopedist, who found "[c]hronic sprain of neck, lumbar spine, and dorsal spine". The printed medical report form published by the Commission provides spaces for the attending physician to indicate whether his patient suffers "Disability for Work" and, if so, the "Date Disability Began", "Date Able to Return to Light Work", and "Date Able to Return to Regular Work". Dr. Foster's report left these spaces blank.

In December following Dr. Foster's examination, Dr. Jacques Botton, a neurosurgeon, performed an anterior cervical fusion to relieve neck pain. A neurological examination conducted in March 1980 showed that Mrs. Porter had "some residual discomfort across her right scapular". Dr. Botton advised that she could return to work "any time" but, because she was experiencing "a certain amount of low back pain which she has had since the injury", she should consult Dr. William Frank, an orthopedist, "before she returns to work". Mrs. Porter was paid compensation from December 3, 1979 until she returned to work March 24, 1980.

Payment of compensation was resumed for the third time in May 1980. A letter from Dr. Botton concerning an examination conducted in July of that year reported that Mrs. Porter was "doing fairly well except for some complaints of pain across her right shoulder." Compensation was terminated in October 1980 when Mrs. Porter returned to work.

The last period of compensation began April 28, 1981 and ended July 13, 1981. During that period, Mrs. Porter was examined by Dr. Foster and Dr. Frank. Dr. Foster found that Mrs. Porter was "[s]till having neck and shoulder pain" which he attributed to the industrial accident. A prescription pad signed by Dr. Frank noted that Mrs. Porter had undergone a "cervical fusion", and that "[s]he'll ... live with pain." Both Dr. Foster and Dr. Frank left the work-capacity spaces on the medical report form blank.

With Dr. Frank's consent, Mrs. Porter returned to work July 13, 1981, the last date for which compensation was paid. Later that day, she consulted Dr. James Massie complaining of "Back Right Shoulder and Right Hip Pain". The diagnosis listed on the form filed by Dr. Massie was "Pain? Etiology"; the work-capacity spaces were blank. Mrs. Porter did not report for work the next day, and during the months of July, August, and September, she worked only 10 hours per week. So far as the record discloses, she has not worked since September 1981.

In July 1982, Mrs. Porter, alleging a change in condition, applied for a hearing and reinstatement of compensation, and the deputy commissioner considered medical evidence submitted since the last payment of disability benefits. In a letter relating to an examination conducted July 16, 1981, Dr. Frank reported that Mrs. Porter "complained of severe back and neck pain", that the examination "disclosed a good range of motion of the lumbar and cervical spine", that "[n]eurological examination was totally normal", and that he had advised his patient to return to Dr. Botton for "follow up care and treatment." In July and August of that year, Mrs. Porter consulted Dr. Botton and his associate, Dr. G.A. Hurt, concerning pain in her right shoulder and arm. Both concluded that there had been no neurological change and left the work-capacity spaces in the medical report form blank.

Reviewing this evidence and finding "no medical basis to sustain [the claimant's] position as to work incapacity", the deputy commissioner denied the application.

In December 1982, Mrs. Porter filed a second change-in-condition claim and submitted a letter dated October 12, 1982 in which Dr. Frank stated:

Ms. Porter has severe degenerative changes in her cervical spine. A cervical fusion has been tried in the past which was unsuccessful. The patient has many subjective complaints of pain, which I believe to be real. She has a normal neurological examination.

I have given Ms. Porter a no work slip, to excuse her from same. I have rated Ms. Porter as having 15% disability to her cervical spine.

The "no work slip", dated October 4, 1982, was based upon a diagnosis of "cervical arthritis". A second letter from Dr. Frank, dated four days before the hearing, reported that, in light of the results of an examination conducted January 11, 1983, Mrs. Porter "continues on a no work status." The deputy commissioner ruled that "work incapacity commenced, according to medical documentation, on October 4, 1982" and entered an award reinstating compensation effective that date. Upon review of the record, the full Commission affirmed the deputy commissioner's award.

Appealing from this award, the employer...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Boukhira v. University
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • 8 Diciembre 2015
    ...causally connected with the original compensable injury.Fodi's, 26 Va. App. at 448, 495 S.E.2d at 504 (citing King's Market v. Porter, 227 Va. 478, 483, 317 S.E.2d 146, 148 (1984)). "Where an application for a change in condition is filed for the sole purpose of presenting additional eviden......
  • Don Pablos Mexican Kitchen v. Nice, Record No. 0088-04-4 (VA 9/7/2004)
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • 7 Septiembre 2004
    ...course of the employment." Cent. State Hosp. v. Wiggers, 230 Va. 157, 159, 335 S.E.2d 257, 258 (1985) (citing Kings Mkt. v. Porter, 227 Va. 478, 484, 317 S.E.2d 146, 149 (1984)). Appellants contend that insufficient evidence existed to reach such a conclusion because Dr. Janati's diagnosis ......
  • Hercules, Inc. v. Carter
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • 8 Octubre 1991
    ...order to prove that his failure to comply with Code § 65.1-63 no longer exists, the procedure is not controlled by King's Market v. Porter, 227 Va. 478, 317 S.E.2d 146 (1984), which held that an employee filing a change in condition application raises the issue of capacity to work and also ......
  • Jenkins v. Webb, Record No. 1845-07-4.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • 24 Junio 2008
    ...credibility and then applied the rule enunciated in Crisp, 1 Va.App. at 505-06, 339 S.E.2d at 917 (citing King's Market v. Porter, 227 Va. 478, 484, 317 S.E.2d 146, 149 (1984)). ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT