Sargent Elec. Co. v. Woodall, 831292
| Decision Date | 30 November 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 831292,831292 |
| Citation | 228 Va. 419,323 S.E.2d 102 |
| Parties | SARGENT ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. v. John W. WOODALL. Record |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Benjamin J. Trichilo, Fairfax (Lewis & Trichilo, Fairfax, on briefs), for appellants.
J. Hunt Brasfield, Alexandria (Ashcraft & Gerel, Alexandria, on brief), for appellee.
Present: All the Justices.
The principal issue in this worker's compensation case is whether the amended version of Rule 13 of the Industrial Commission may be applied retrospectively. 1
On October 20, 1977, John Woodall suffered a cervical sprain when he was assaulted by a fellow employee of Sargent Electric Company. At that time Woodall was earning an average weekly wage of $503.00 ($26,161.70 annually). Sargent's insurance carrier, Insurance Company of North America, acknowledged the claim as compensable and, pursuant to a memorandum of agreement, compensated Woodall for temporary total work incapacity from October 27, 1977 through March 17, 1978.
On March 18, 1978, Woodall returned to work for Sargent at a reduced wage of $463.60. Under a supplemental memorandum of agreement approved by the Commission, Woodall was awarded $26.34 per week for temporary partial work incapacity. Compensation was paid at that rate from March 18, 1978 through August 19, 1979, after which the carrier, without explanation, unilaterally suspended payments.
Despite Woodall's protestations and the Industrial Commission's reminders that the award for temporary partial incapacity remained outstanding, the carrier took no action on the matter until October 22, 1982. On that date, the carrier filed a change-in-condition application pursuant to Code § 65.1-99, alleging that Woodall had resumed work for other employers as of August 19, 1979 at an average weekly wage of $564.16. The Commission rejected the application "[i]n view of the lack of supporting information" required by Rule 13. The Commission again reminded the carrier that the award remained outstanding.
On December 7, 1982, the Commission referred the matter to the hearing docket on its own motion. See Code § 65.1-99. A hearing was held January 10, 1983 before a deputy commissioner who considered evidence indicating that Woodall had earned annual wages fluctuating between $18,000 and $29,000 in the years 1979 through 1982. The deputy commissioner found that the carrier was not in compliance with Rule 13 in that, for a period of more than three years, it had failed to pay compensation under the outstanding award and failed to obtain current wage information from the claimant through proper discovery procedures. The deputy commissioner held "that the correct and most equitable means of handling this extremely complex factual situation is to require payment of the outstanding award up through [December 7, 1982] plus the 20% penalty mandated by Section 65.1-75.1 ...." 2 The outstanding award was terminated effective that date, resulting in an award of delinquent compensation and penalties in the amount of $5,427.54. Woodall's claims for further incapacity were referred to the Commission's claims division.
The carrier appealed to the full Commission, requesting that the award be modified by deleting benefits and penalties for those weeks in which Woodall earned in excess of his pre-injury average weekly wage. The Commission declined on the ground that the carrier's failure to comply with Rule 13 was the reason the award remained outstanding. In its opinion dated July 8, 1983, the Commission held that "with this outstanding award, it makes no difference that the employee may have had some earnings during portions of this time in excess of his prior average weekly wage."
On appeal to this Court, the carrier argues that the Commission "erred by failing to follow the requirements of its own Rule 13", and further, that by requiring the carrier to pay compensation for those weeks in which the claimant's weekly wage equalled or exceeded his pre-injury wages, the Commission exceeded its authority under the Act.
We do not agree with either contention. The Commission's holding is supported by our decision in Board and Paper Company v. Parker, 201 Va. 328, 111 S.E.2d 453 (1959). There, as here, the insurance carrier unilaterally suspended compensation payments to a claimant who had returned to work. The carrier subsequently filed an application for hearing based on a change in condition, alleging that the claimant had returned to work at a wage equal to or greater than his pre-injury wage. Because the application showed on its face that the carrier had suspended payments under the outstanding award several months prior to filing the application, the Commission affirmed an opinion of a deputy commissioner dismissing the carrier's application. Upholding the Commission's decision, we pointed out that Rule 13 "was adopted to require prompt payment of compensation to all claimants entitled thereto" and that "[o]ne of its purposes was to eliminate the result which took place in this case, that is, the arbitrary discontinuance of compensation by the employer and the insurance carrier without legal sanction." Id. at 331-32, 111 S.E.2d at 456.
The carrier argues, however, that Board and Paper Company was decided prior to May 1, 1979, when the amendment here at issue became effective. The carrier concedes that, prior to its amendment, Rule 13 "required payment of benefits to the date of filing of the change in condition Application, even in those instances where the employee had actually returned to work." But, as interpreted by the carrier, the amended version "permits benefits to be terminated once the employee has returned to work, and places no time limits for the filing of an Application for Hearing by the employer or insurer." Thus, assuming that the carrier's interpretation is correct, 3 disposition of the case depends primarily on whether the amended version of Rule 13 may be applied retroactively.
The carrier argues that Rule 13 is procedural in nature and disturbs no vested rights and, therefore, that the amended version may be applied retroactively. We disagree.
The General Assembly has authorized the Industrial Commission to "make rules, not inconsistent with this Act, for carrying out the provisions of this Act." Code § 65.1-18. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Montgomery v. Commonwealth
...only, instead of vested or substantive rights, the statute may "be given retroactive effect." Id. (quoting Sargent Elec. Co. v. Woodall , 228 Va. 419, 424, 323 S.E.2d 102 (1984) ). "A law affects substantive rights if it ‘deals with [the] creation of duties, rights, and obligations.’ " Id. ......
-
Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Smit
...Judicial Inquiry & Review Commission v. Elliott, 272 Va. 97, 115, 630 S.E.2d 485, 494 (2006); see also Sargent Elec. Co. v. Woodall, 228 Va. 419, 424, 323 S.E.2d 102, 105 (1984). In short, the requirement of fair notice contained in due process is not satisfied if the public cannot determin......
-
Farish for Farish v. Courion Industries, Inc.
...to be applied prospectively or retroactively. Shiflet v. Eller, 228 Va. 115, 319 S.E.2d 750 (1984); see also Sargent Electric Co. v. Woodall, 228 Va. ---, 323 S.E.2d 102 (1984). In Shiflet, Justice Compton, writing for the court, observed "that 'substantive' rights as well as 'vested' right......
-
Gionis v. Commonwealth
...only, instead of vested or substantive rights, the statute may ‘be given retroactive effect.’ " Id. (quoting Sargent Elec. Co. v. Woodall , 228 Va. 419, 424, 323 S.E.2d 102 (1984) (internal citation omitted)); McCarthy , 73 Va. App. at 647, 864 S.E.2d 577. We address each of these in turn.F......