Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Coffey, 1032-91-3

Decision Date24 December 1991
Docket NumberNo. 1032-91-3,1032-91-3
CourtVirginia Court of Appeals
PartiesWESTMORELAND COAL COMPANY v. James Emerson COFFEY.

Michael F. Blair, Abingdon (Penn, Stuart, Eskridge & Jones, on brief), for appellant.

Clarence E. Phillips, St. Paul (Kilgore, Phillips & Steele, on brief), for appellee.

Present: BARROW, COLEMAN and MOON, JJ.

BARROW, Judge.

In this appeal from the Workers' Compensation Commission, the employer contends that the commission erred in not finding the employee's claim for compensation barred because of his failure to give notice of his accident as required by Code § 65.1-85. We hold that credible evidence supports the commission's finding that the employee had a reasonable excuse for not giving notice as required by the statute and that the employer has not been prejudiced by the failure to give notice.

On February 22, 1990, the employee, James Coffey, attempted to lift a mining belt while at work. Upon doing so, he immediately felt pain in his left shoulder and neck. Coffey testified that the pain lasted only a few seconds. Since it seemed trivial, Coffey did not believe that he had suffered any injury, and, therefore, he decided against reporting it.

Coffey was able to continue working that day; however, the next morning, he began to experience dizziness, nausea, and loss of hearing. Although he reported to work the following two days, he was unable to finish his shifts. He did not attend work again. Coffey's nausea and dizziness continued throughout the remainder of the week; his hearing loss became progressively worse; and he sought medical attention on February 24, 1990. Coffey testified that he did not tell the doctor of the lifting incident because he did not associate it with any of these symptoms.

For the next few weeks, Coffey visited several more doctors, tried various medication, and underwent tests. Sometime in April, Coffey began to suspect that he had injured his ear in the lifting incident. At that time, he told his doctor of the accident. Coffey also advised his employer of such possibility, but explained that he had no medical diagnosis confirming his suspicions. It was not until surgery was conducted on May 4, 1990, that the severity of his problem, and its relationship to the lifting incident, was determined. Coffey suffered a ruptured eardrum, resulting in complete hearing loss in his left ear, accompanied by vertigo. After the surgery, Coffey immediately reported his condition and the accident to his supervisor.

The deputy commissioner denied benefits, finding that Coffey had no reasonable excuse for delay because he knew immediately that he had sustained some sort of an injury, and, thus, he should have reported the incident to the employer regardless of uncertainty as to its extent. The deputy commissioner also found that the delay had resulted in prejudice to the employer, Westmoreland Coal, as it had not been afforded the opportunity to offer Coffey medical treatment or to investigate the situation and uncover evidence enabling physicians to make an earlier determination of his condition. The commission reversed the deputy commissioner, finding that the record clearly showed and supported a finding that Coffey had reason to consider the accident which occurred to be momentary, trivial, and without injurious effect and that Coffey had a reasonable excuse for not reporting the accident before diagnosis because he had no genuine basis for establishing a connection between the accident and the injury. It further held that the employer was not prejudiced in any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Bristol Newspapers, Inc. v. Shaffer
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • 6. Juli 1993
    ...688, 690 (1991). See Maryland Casualty Co. v. Robinson, 149 Va. 307, 310, 141 S.E. 225, 226 (1928); Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Coffey, 13 Va.App. 446, 448, 412 S.E.2d 209, 210-11 (1991). We agree with employer that the commission incorrectly construed Code § 65.2-602 to toll the statute whene......
  • Batal Builders, Inc. v. Hi-Tech Concrete, Inc.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • 24. Mai 1994
    ...for the delay in notification, the employer has "the burden of showing prejudice caused by the delay." Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Coffey, 13 Va.App. 446, 448, 412 S.E.2d 209, 211 (1991); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Robinson, 149 Va. 307, 311, 141 S.E. 225, 226 (1928). In this case, it is undispu......
  • Food Lion, LLC v. Toehlke
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • 14. April 2020
    ...satisfied that the employer has not been prejudiced, compensation may be paid even if notice is not timely given." Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Coffey, 13 Va. App. 446, 448 (1991). "Written notice is unnecessary if the employer has actual notice through a foreman or other superior officer." Goo......
  • C. Richard Bogese Builder, Inc. v. Robertson
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • 15. Februar 1994
    ...notice is on the employee; the burden of showing prejudice caused by that delay is on the employer. Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Coffey, 13 Va.App. 446, 448, 412 S.E.2d 209, 211 (1991). Here, the commission found as a fact that Sears had misled Robertson as to the identity of the general contra......
  • 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