Ratliff v. Rocco Farm Foods
| Decision Date | 13 April 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 0531-92-4,0531-92-4 |
| Parties | Patricia Darlene RATLIFF v. ROCCO FARM FOODS and Home Indemnity Company. Record |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
(John W. Acree, Woodstock, on brief), for appellant.
M. Bruce Wallinger, Harrisonburg (Wharton, Adhizer & Weaver, on brief), for appellees.
Present: BENTON, BARROW and COLEMAN, JJ.
Patricia Darlene Ratliff contends that the commission erred when it considered on review an issue that was not raised by either party, viz., whether the evidence was sufficient to establish an injury by industrial accident. Ratliff further contends that even if the issue was properly considered, the commission erred in determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish an injury by accident. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the commission's decisions.
The evidence proved that Ratliff was inspecting poultry on a conveyor belt at the Rocco Farm Foods plant on Monday, December 17, 1990, when a co-worker began to faint. Ratliff testified that she reached over a bar separating her from the co-worker and caught the co-worker who was falling backwards. She stated that she held the co-worker for "probably a minute." Randy Helmick, another worker, testified that the fainting worker caught herself before falling and that Ratliff did not touch her. Another worker similarly testified that Ratliff did not come in contact with the fainting worker.
Ratliff testified that she first noticed problems with her lower back the next night at the beginning of her shift. However, she worked full shifts on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. On Friday morning, Ratliff said she was unable to get out of bed without help from her husband. Later that day, she went to see a chiropractor, Dr. Joseph C. Cheff. Dr. Cheff's report noted the incident of December 17 as described by Ratliff. The report also indicated that "[Ratliff] stated that since the accident she didn't start to feel discomfort until two nights later at work." He diagnosed Ratliff as suffering from acute traumatic lumbar sprain, posterior lumbar facet irritation, and bilateral sciatic neuralgia.
An orthopedic follow-up was ordered by Rocco Farms. Dr. Mark A. Rhodes examined Ratliff and reported that her "symptoms are potentially compatible with the injury sustained in holding the injured worker and straining her back which gradually did come on over several days." However, he could not substantiate that she was having pain during these several days. Dr. Rhodes released Ratliff to return to light duty work.
Ratliff filed an application for benefits after Rocco Farms notified her that it contested her account of the incident. Following an evidentiary hearing, the deputy commissioner concluded that although there was evidence that Ratliff exaggerated some of the events, "the medical evidence preponderates in showing that Ratliff could have injured her lower back as alleged, resulting in four weeks of total disability due to a lumbar strain." Nevertheless, the deputy commissioner held that Ratliff's denial on an employment application of previous lower back problems constituted a material misrepresentation that barred her from receiving compensation. In her request for review, Ratliff noted exceptions to the finding of a material misrepresentation and the finding of an unjustified refusal to accept an offer of light duty. Rocco Farm Foods did not request review of any aspects of the deputy commissioner's opinion. On review, the commission found that Ratliff did not make a material misrepresentation. However, the commission affirmed the denial of Ratliff's claim because it concluded that Ratliff's evidence failed to establish an injury by accident.
Ratliff contends that the commission erred when it considered on review the issue whether the evidence established an injury by accident. She argues that, because no exception was taken to the deputy commissioner's finding that an injury by accident occurred, the issue was not properly before the commission. We conclude that the commission acted consistent with its rules.
The deputy commissioner's opinion states that "Ratliff could have injured her lower back as alleged" (emphasis added). That statement denotes only the possibility that the injury occurred as alleged. To establish by a preponderance of the evidence a causal connection between the incident and the claimed disability, the "proof must go beyond conjecture." Southall v. Eldridge Reams, Inc., 198 Va. 545, 548, 95 S.E.2d 145, 147 (1956). See generally, Manassas Ice & Fuel Co. v. Farrar, 13 Va.App. 227, 234, 409 S.E.2d 824, 828-29 (1991). Thus, the deputy commissioner's opinion cannot be fairly read to hold that Ratliff's evidence proved by a preponderance of the evidence an injury by accident.
In any event, Rule 2(A) of the Rules of the Workers' Compensation Commission reads as follows:
Request for Review. Within twenty (20) days from the date of the decision or award by a hearing Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or award by the Claims Division, a party may file a request for review by the Full Commission of such decision or award. A request for review must be in writing and must be filed with the Clerk of the Commission (§ 65.2-705 and § 65.2-101, Code of Virginia). A request for review should specify each determination of fact or law to which exception is taken. A copy of the request for review must be furnished to the opposing party.
The commission has statutory authority to "make rules and regulations for carrying out the provisions of [the Act]." Code § 65.2-201(A). In Brushy Ridge Coal Co. v. Blevins, 6 Va.App. 73, 367 S.E.2d 204 (1988), this Court recognized the commission's authority to exercise its discretion under "Rule 2(A) ... to hear ... petition[s] for review without a specification of each determination of fact or law, and to determine all of the issues involved in the case." Id. 6 Va.App. at 78, 367 S.E.2d at 206. This Court has also stated, "however, ... that the rule must be applied equally to all parties irrespective of whether they be claimant or employer/insurer." Seneca Falls Greenhouse & Nursery v. Layton, 9 Va.App. 482, 484, 389 S.E.2d 184, 186 (1990).
Ratliff does not claim that the commission has applied the rule inequitably. Rather, she contends the commission "had no jurisdiction to consider [the] question" of injury by accident. We disagree. The requirement that the request for review specify each determination of fact or law to which exception is taken is not "jurisdictional in nature, mandating that the commission disregard other errors that may be made by the deputy commissioner." Blevins, 6 Va.App. at 78, 367 S.E.2d at 206 (footnote added). Indeed, it has long been the rule that:
[a] single award may not be segmented into component parts, some of which are final dispositions and others of which are not. An appeal of a deputy commissioner's award empowers the Industrial Commission to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boyd v. People, Inc., Record No. 1910-03-3.
...has statutory authority to `make rules and regulations for carrying out the provisions of [the Act].'" Ratliff v. Rocco Farm Foods, 16 Va.App. 234, 237, 429 S.E.2d 39, 41 (1993) (citing Code § 65.2-201(A)). "Because the [commission] promulgates these rules and has the obligation and right t......
-
Food Lion LLC v. Otey
...bathroom and first experienced pain when she later bent to make the room's bed). Compare id. with Ratliff v. Rocco Farm Food & Home Indemnity Co., 16 Va. App. 234, 429 S.E.2d 39 (1993) (affirming a decision of the commission finding no causal connection where the claimant, who had had inter......
-
Mitchell v. Miller Group and Pennsylvania Manufacturing Association Insurance Co., Record No. 1555-04-2 (VA 2/8/2005)
...although the claimant's recognition of the injury "does not have to be contemporaneous with the accident," Ratliff v. Rocco Farm Foods, 16 Va. App. 234, 239, 429 S.E.2d 39, 42 (1993), an "injury by accident" does not include "cases in which the injury is gradually incurred or incurred at an......
-
Sykes Enters., Inc. v. Cox
...with the incident in employment), rev'd on other grounds, 238 Va. 678, 385 S.E.2d 858 (1989); see also Ratliff v. Rocco Farm Foods, 16 Va. App.234, 239, 429 S.E.2d 39, 42 (1993) (stating that "pain does not have to be contemporaneous with the accident to be an injury by accident"). In addit......