COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Humphreys and Senior Judge Overton
CAROLE E. VANCE MEMORANDUM OPINION* v. Record No. 1017-03-3 PER CURIAM AUGUST 26, 2003 LOWES OF STAUNTON AND LOWES HOME CENTERS, INC.
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(A. Thomas Lane, Jr., on brief), for appellant.
(Mary Beth Nash; Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore, on brief), for appellees.
Carole E. Vance contends the Workers' Compensation
Commission erred in finding that she (1) unjustifiably refused
selective employment offered to her by her employer, Lowes of
Staunton; and (2) failed to prove she was totally disabled as of
November 2001, as a result of her May 25, 1997 compensable
injury by accident. Upon reviewing the record and the parties'
briefs, we conclude that this appeal is without merit.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's decision.
Rule 5A:27.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. I. Unjustified Refusal of Selective Employment
"When the employer establishes that selective employment
was offered to an employee that was within the employee's
capacity to work, the employee bears the burden of establishing
justification for refusing the offered employment." Food Lion,
Inc. v. Lee, 16 Va. App. 616, 619, 431 S.E.2d 342, 344 (1993).
The employee may satisfy her burden by "put[ting] forward real
and substantial reasons for her refusal . . . such that a
reasonable person desirous of employment would have refused the
offered work." Johnson v. Virginia Employment Comm'n, 8
Va. App. 441, 452, 382 S.E.2d 476, 481 (1989).
Ruling that Vance was not justified in refusing employer's
March 29, 2001 offer of selective employment, the commission
found as follows:
The evidence showed that the employer offered [Vance] selective employment that complied with her restrictions. [Vance] testified specifically that the employment as a cashier was too strenuous, however, because she was required to move heavy items when customers were checking out. The evidence showed that [Vance] could call for assistance under these circumstances, but [she] denied that assistance was forthcoming. We agree with [Vance] that having to wait lengthy periods for assistance while agitated customers attempted to check out would be poor customer service, but we do not believe that [she] was thereby justified in refusing to perform the work under such circumstances.
Credible evidence supports these findings. Dr. Richard
Miller reviewed the cashier job description in January 2001 and - 2 - opined that Vance could perform that job with some
modifications, including assistance in lifting items and a stool
for her to sit on. Dr. Miller indicated in a letter that he and
Vance had reviewed the cashier job description and that Vance
felt that she could perform most of the functions of the job.
Dr. Miller noted that Vance would not be able to carry
customers' purchases to vehicles, that she might have some
difficulty pulling stock from overhead areas, and that she would
have difficulty moving objects up to 200 pounds. Dr. Miller
indicated that Vance needed to have periods of intermittent
sitting and short walks, and acknowledged that employer had
provided Vance with a stool which allowed for free movement.
Dr. Miller approved the cashier job for Vance with
accommodations for her restrictions.
Vance testified that between March 17, 2001 and March 26,
2001 she performed the job with some modifications and sometimes
had to wait thirty minutes for help. Although she had a stool
and could scan some items without difficulty, she contended that
she had a "terrible time" performing the cashier job because she
had to turn other items for scanning, to bend and stoop, and to
move items around on the counter. Vance admitted, however, that
she was never the only cashier on duty, that she had a telephone
to call for help, and that managers and loaders were present in
the store at all times.
- 3 - On March 26, 2001, Dr. Bart Balint restricted Vance to
light-duty with no lifting over twenty pounds, no twisting, no
bending at the waist or lifting over shoulder height, and no
kneeling, crawling or stooping. Three days later, Vance
returned to work as a telephone operator. After forty-five
minutes, she was reassigned to the cashier job because the
telephone operator job was no longer available. Vance told her
supervisor that the cashier job did not fit within her doctor's
restrictions, and she left work. Vance admitted that Renny
McGann, the assistant store manager, told her that help would be
available if she needed it and that she would be supplied with a
stool. Vance considered the cashier job to be demeaning and
"beneath her."
Georgeanna Logan, employer's former administrative clerk,
testified, however, that she observed Vance performing the
cashier job and that Vance did not appear to have any difficulty
performing her duties. Logan also testified loaders were always
available to load heavy items into customers' vehicles and to
help the cashiers with bulky items. Vance told McGann on March
29, 2001, that she could not perform the cashier's job; Vance
and McGann reviewed Vance's restrictions and McGann offered to
make accommodations for Vance. In addition, Jeffrey Scott
Clendenon, a store manager, testified that other employees were
available to assist Vance if she requested help. Vance still
refused to perform the cashier's job. - 4 - Tina Myers, employer's personnel training coordinator,
testified that after Dr. Miller reviewed the job description and
informed employer of modifications that needed to be made to the
job for Vance, employer offered Vance the cashier job with
modifications, which she performed for a period of time. The
only problem Vance reported to her at that time was that she
needed a different type of stool. The employer provided another
stool to Vance. After Vance's right shoulder injury in January
2001, she worked as a telephone operator. When Myers received
Dr. Balint's March 26, 2001 light-duty restrictions for Vance,
employer again offered Vance the cashier job with modifications,
which Vance contended she could not do because of her
restrictions.
Upon this evidence, the commission could reasonably
conclude that Vance was not justified in refusing to perform the
cashier job on March 29, 2001. Accordingly, the record does not
establish as a matter of law that Vance's evidence sustained her
burden of proving she was justified in refusing employer's offer
of selective employment on March 29, 2001. See Tomko v.
Michael's Plastering Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 833, 835
(1970). Thus, the commission's findings are binding and
conclusive on appeal. Id.
- 5 - II. Disability after November 2001
Denying Vance's claim for an award of temporary total
disability benefits beginning in November 2001, the commission
On March 26, 2001, Dr.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Humphreys and Senior Judge Overton
CAROLE E. VANCE MEMORANDUM OPINION* v. Record No. 1017-03-3 PER CURIAM AUGUST 26, 2003 LOWES OF STAUNTON AND LOWES HOME CENTERS, INC.
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(A. Thomas Lane, Jr., on brief), for appellant.
(Mary Beth Nash; Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore, on brief), for appellees.
Carole E. Vance contends the Workers' Compensation
Commission erred in finding that she (1) unjustifiably refused
selective employment offered to her by her employer, Lowes of
Staunton; and (2) failed to prove she was totally disabled as of
November 2001, as a result of her May 25, 1997 compensable
injury by accident. Upon reviewing the record and the parties'
briefs, we conclude that this appeal is without merit.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's decision.
Rule 5A:27.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. I. Unjustified Refusal of Selective Employment
"When the employer establishes that selective employment
was offered to an employee that was within the employee's
capacity to work, the employee bears the burden of establishing
justification for refusing the offered employment." Food Lion,
Inc. v. Lee, 16 Va. App. 616, 619, 431 S.E.2d 342, 344 (1993).
The employee may satisfy her burden by "put[ting] forward real
and substantial reasons for her refusal . . . such that a
reasonable person desirous of employment would have refused the
offered work." Johnson v. Virginia Employment Comm'n, 8
Va. App. 441, 452, 382 S.E.2d 476, 481 (1989).
Ruling that Vance was not justified in refusing employer's
March 29, 2001 offer of selective employment, the commission
found as follows:
The evidence showed that the employer offered [Vance] selective employment that complied with her restrictions. [Vance] testified specifically that the employment as a cashier was too strenuous, however, because she was required to move heavy items when customers were checking out. The evidence showed that [Vance] could call for assistance under these circumstances, but [she] denied that assistance was forthcoming. We agree with [Vance] that having to wait lengthy periods for assistance while agitated customers attempted to check out would be poor customer service, but we do not believe that [she] was thereby justified in refusing to perform the work under such circumstances.
Credible evidence supports these findings. Dr. Richard
Miller reviewed the cashier job description in January 2001 and - 2 - opined that Vance could perform that job with some
modifications, including assistance in lifting items and a stool
for her to sit on. Dr. Miller indicated in a letter that he and
Vance had reviewed the cashier job description and that Vance
felt that she could perform most of the functions of the job.
Dr. Miller noted that Vance would not be able to carry
customers' purchases to vehicles, that she might have some
difficulty pulling stock from overhead areas, and that she would
have difficulty moving objects up to 200 pounds. Dr. Miller
indicated that Vance needed to have periods of intermittent
sitting and short walks, and acknowledged that employer had
provided Vance with a stool which allowed for free movement.
Dr. Miller approved the cashier job for Vance with
accommodations for her restrictions.
Vance testified that between March 17, 2001 and March 26,
2001 she performed the job with some modifications and sometimes
had to wait thirty minutes for help. Although she had a stool
and could scan some items without difficulty, she contended that
she had a "terrible time" performing the cashier job because she
had to turn other items for scanning, to bend and stoop, and to
move items around on the counter. Vance admitted, however, that
she was never the only cashier on duty, that she had a telephone
to call for help, and that managers and loaders were present in
the store at all times.
- 3 - On March 26, 2001, Dr. Bart Balint restricted Vance to
light-duty with no lifting over twenty pounds, no twisting, no
bending at the waist or lifting over shoulder height, and no
kneeling, crawling or stooping. Three days later, Vance
returned to work as a telephone operator. After forty-five
minutes, she was reassigned to the cashier job because the
telephone operator job was no longer available. Vance told her
supervisor that the cashier job did not fit within her doctor's
restrictions, and she left work. Vance admitted that Renny
McGann, the assistant store manager, told her that help would be
available if she needed it and that she would be supplied with a
stool. Vance considered the cashier job to be demeaning and
"beneath her."
Georgeanna Logan, employer's former administrative clerk,
testified, however, that she observed Vance performing the
cashier job and that Vance did not appear to have any difficulty
performing her duties. Logan also testified loaders were always
available to load heavy items into customers' vehicles and to
help the cashiers with bulky items. Vance told McGann on March
29, 2001, that she could not perform the cashier's job; Vance
and McGann reviewed Vance's restrictions and McGann offered to
make accommodations for Vance. In addition, Jeffrey Scott
Clendenon, a store manager, testified that other employees were
available to assist Vance if she requested help. Vance still
refused to perform the cashier's job. - 4 - Tina Myers, employer's personnel training coordinator,
testified that after Dr. Miller reviewed the job description and
informed employer of modifications that needed to be made to the
job for Vance, employer offered Vance the cashier job with
modifications, which she performed for a period of time. The
only problem Vance reported to her at that time was that she
needed a different type of stool. The employer provided another
stool to Vance. After Vance's right shoulder injury in January
2001, she worked as a telephone operator. When Myers received
Dr. Balint's March 26, 2001 light-duty restrictions for Vance,
employer again offered Vance the cashier job with modifications,
which Vance contended she could not do because of her
restrictions.
Upon this evidence, the commission could reasonably
conclude that Vance was not justified in refusing to perform the
cashier job on March 29, 2001. Accordingly, the record does not
establish as a matter of law that Vance's evidence sustained her
burden of proving she was justified in refusing employer's offer
of selective employment on March 29, 2001. See Tomko v.
Michael's Plastering Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 833, 835
(1970). Thus, the commission's findings are binding and
conclusive on appeal. Id.
- 5 - II. Disability after November 2001
Denying Vance's claim for an award of temporary total
disability benefits beginning in November 2001, the commission
On March 26, 2001, Dr. Balint issued light-duty restrictions, advising against lifting over twenty pounds. Dr. Miller examined [Vance] on December 12, 2001, but did not issue any work restrictions. On April 20, 2002, Dr. Miller opined that he was not sure that [Vance] had any period of total disability but that at "the times I have seen her and been involved, both correlate I felt that she was able to work with limitations." Dr. Miller examined [Vance] on April 25, 2002, and did not mention work restrictions. On June 10, 2002, however, Dr. Miller opined that [Vance] was "totally disabled from a medical standpoint" and had been so "since Nov. 01." Dr. Miller confirmed this opinion on August 2, 2002, noting that "her current disabling problems [were] right knee trauma and pain, neuropathic right sided body pain and her right shoulder injury [which] date back to her 5/25/97 injury and subsequent problems."
As noted above, the evidence did not show that the claimant's right shoulder problems were the result of the May 1997 accident. Thus, [Vance] suffered from compensable right knee problems, which were not totally disabling, as shown by Dr. Miller's April 20, 2002, opinion. [Vance] also suffered from non-compensable right-shoulder problems, which also were not totally disabling. Thus, it was not clear why Dr. Miller opined in June 2002 that [Vance] was totally disabled since November 2001. We agree with the deputy commissioner that Dr. Miller's opinion was not credible and that the evidence showed that [Vance] was able to perform selective employment.
- 6 - "Medical evidence is not necessarily conclusive, but is
subject to the commission's consideration and weighing."
Hungerford Mechanical Corp. v. Hobson, 11 Va. App. 675, 677, 401
S.E.2d 213, 215 (1991). As fact finder, the commission weighed
Dr. Miller's various medical records and opinions and found
persuasive the absence of contemporaneous notes from Dr. Miller
indicating total disability as of November 2001. On April 20,
2002, Dr. Miller responded to Vance's attorney's questionnaire
indicating that he felt Vance was capable of light-duty work the
times he had seen her. Vance's other physicians opined that she
was capable of light-duty work as of November 2001. In light of
these factors, the commission was entitled to conclude that
Dr. Miller's retroactive opinion was not credible and did not
provide sufficient evidence to prove that Vance was totally
disabled as of November 2001, as a result of her compensable
right knee injury.
Because the medical evidence was subject to the
commission's factual determination, we cannot find as a matter
of law that the evidence proved Vance was totally disabled as of
November 2001. Vance did not appeal the commission's finding
that her right shoulder problems were not a compensable
consequence of her May 25, 1997 right knee injury. Accordingly,
that finding is binding and conclusive upon us on appeal.
For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed. - 7 -