Williams v. Gloucester Sheriff's Dept.
| Citation | 266 Va. 409, 587 S.E.2d 546 |
| Case Date | October 31, 2003 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Virginia |
587 S.E.2d 546
266 Va. 409
v.
GLOUCESTER (COUNTY OF) SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, et al
Record No. 022213.
Supreme Court of Virginia.
October 31, 2003.
Ralph L. Whitt, Jr. (Whitt & Associates, on brief), for appellees.
Present: All the Justices.
OPINION BY Justice ELIZABETH B. LACY.
The issue in this appeal is whether the contemporaneous objection rule prohibits a party from appealing a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission rendered on grounds neither raised nor previously addressed in the proceedings, if an objection to that decision was not made the subject of a motion for rehearing or reconsideration before the Commission.
Jeffrey L. Williams sought workers' compensation benefits for heart disease he claimed he developed while employed by the Gloucester County Sheriff's Department. A deputy commissioner denied his claim, and Williams sought review of this decision by the full Commission. The Commission affirmed the decision of the deputy commissioner, but on different grounds. The Commission determined that Williams' last "injurious exposure" occurred while he was employed by the Virginia Peninsula Regional Jail Authority, not the Gloucester County Sheriff's Department, and therefore, that Williams was not entitled to benefits from the Sheriff's Department.
Williams appealed the Commission's decision to the Court of Appeals, asserting that the Commission erred in denying benefits based on its conclusions regarding Williams' last injurious exposure. The Court of Appeals in an unpublished memorandum per curiam opinion refused to consider Williams' appeal, holding that Williams failed to preserve the
issue for appeal because he did not file a motion for reconsideration raising this issue before the Commission. This failure, according to the Court of Appeals, deprived the Commission of the opportunity to correct the alleged error and thus violated the principles associated with the contemporaneous objection rule, Rule 5A:18. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission's decision. Jeffrey L. Williams v. Gloucester (County of) Sheriff's Department and Virginia Municipal Group Self-Insurance Association, No. 0905-02-4, 2002 WL 1968799 (August 27, 2002) (memorandum per curiam)In this appeal, Williams argues that because the basis for the Commission's decision was not raised, litigated,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Bakke, Record No. 2351-04-4.
...by the full commission." Berner v. Mills, 38 Va. App. 11, 18, 560 S.E.2d 925, 928 (2002). See also Williams v. Gloucester Sheriff's Dep't, 266 Va. 409, 411, 587 S.E.2d 546, 548 (2003) (noting that parties may raise issues before the commission by motions to reconsider); Overhead Door Co. of......
-
Dufresne v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0281–15–2.
...and correct a perceived error before such error is brought to the appellate court for review.” Williams v. Gloucester Sheriff's Dep't , 266 Va. 409, 411, 587 S.E.2d 546, 548 (2003) (citation omitted). Moreover,[f]or an objection to meet the requirements of Rule 5A:18, it must also “be made ......
-
Jackson v. Com., Record No. 030749 | 030750.
...guilt and the appropriate sentence thereafter. The record contains ample evidence supporting the imposition of the death sentence, and 587 S.E.2d 546 nothing in the record suggests that passion or prejudice played any part in that Code § 17.1-313(C)(2) requires us to determine whether the s......
-
Dufresne v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0281-15-2
...a position to correct a claimed error. Id.; Reid v. Baumgardner, 217 Va. at 774, 232 S.E.2d at 781.Williams v. Gloucester Sheriff's Dep't, 266 Va. 409, 411, 587 S.E.2d 546, 548 (2003).Page 5 Clearly, the motion to set aside in this case afforded the trial court an opportunity "to consider a......