City of Roanoke v. Ronald F. Renick

CourtCourt of Appeals of Virginia
DecidedJuly 2, 1996
Docket2643953
StatusUnpublished

This text of City of Roanoke v. Ronald F. Renick (City of Roanoke v. Ronald F. Renick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Roanoke v. Ronald F. Renick, (Va. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Fitzpatrick, Overton and Senior Judge Hodges Argued at Salem, Virginia

CITY OF ROANOKE MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 2643-95-3 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON JULY 2, 1996 RONALD F. RENICK

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION

Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney (Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney, on briefs), for appellant. Mary L. Poletti (Brumberg, Mackey & Wall, P.L.C., on brief), for appellee.

The Workers' Compensation Commission awarded benefits to the

claimant, Ronald F. Renick, for his condition of esophageal

motility disorder resulting from extreme stress in his

employment. Renick's employer appeals, challenging both the

classification of his condition as an occupational disease and

the causal link to his employment.

The parties are fully conversant with the record to this

case, and a recitation of the facts is unnecessary to this

memorandum opinion.

Renick's condition was established as a disease. All

medical records as well as the medical literature demonstrate

that the treating doctors as well as the medical community

believe this to be a disease. This classification is a medical * Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication. issue to be decided by the trier of fact based on evidence at the

hearing. Knott v. Blue Bell, Inc., 7 Va. App. 335, 338, 373

S.E.2d 481, 483 (1988).

Renick's employment caused the stress that triggered his

condition. No other source of stress was noted or argued by

either doctors or counsel. The treating specialists ruled out

other causes and came to the conclusion that stress caused his

condition. "[A] determination of causation is a factual

finding." Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Musick, 7 Va. App. 684, 688, 376

S.E.2d 814, 817 (1989).

We find that credible evidence supports the commission's

findings, and we will not disturb them on appeal. The decision

of the commission is affirmed.

Affirmed.

- 2 -

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Musick
376 S.E.2d 814 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1989)
Knott v. Blue Bell, Inc.
373 S.E.2d 481 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
City of Roanoke v. Ronald F. Renick, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-roanoke-v-ronald-f-renick-vactapp-1996.