Williams v. Gloucester Sheriff's Dept.

• Decision Date: 31 October 2003
• Docket Number: Record No. 022213.
• Citation: Williams v. Gloucester Sheriff's Dept., 587 S.E.2d 546, 266 Va. 409 (2003)
• Parties: Jeffrey L. WILLIAMS v. GLOUCESTER (COUNTY OF) SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, et al.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

587 S.E.2d 546

266 Va. 409

Jeffrey L. WILLIAMS v.GLOUCESTER (COUNTY OF) SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, et al.

Record No. 022213.

Supreme Court of Virginia.

October 31, 2003.

Michael A. Kernbach(Burgess, Kernbach & Perigard, on brief), Fairfax, for appellant.

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in denying benefits based on its conclusions regarding Williams' last injurious exposure.The Court of Appeals in an unpublished memorandum per curiam opinion refused to consider Williams' appeal, holding that Williams failed to preserve the issue for appeal because he did not file a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, or in any way considered as an issue in the case prior to the issuance of the Commission's decision, because there is no formal procedure for filing a motion for reconsideration before the Commission, and because such motion does not stay the time for filing an appeal, the Court of Appeals should not have applied Rule 5A:18 to bar his appeal.We disagree with Williams.

The contemporaneous objection rule, embodied in Rule 5A:18 in the Court of Appeals and Rule 5:25 in this Court, is based on the principle that a litigant has the responsibility to afford a court the opportunity to consider and correct a perceived error before such error is brought to the appellate court for review.Reid v. Baumgardner,217 Va. 769, 773, 232 S.E.2d 778, 781(1977).The contemporaneous objection rules in each court exist "to protect the trial court...