Gregory Daughtry v. Boar's Head Provisions Company, Inc. and American Zurich Insurance Company

• Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia
• Decided: November 24, 2015
• Docket: 0278152
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Humphreys, O’Brien and Senior Judge Bumgardner UNPUBLISHED

GREGORY DAUGHTRY MEMORANDUM OPINION* v. Record No. 0278-15-2 PER CURIAM NOVEMBER 24, 2015 BOAR’S HEAD PROVISIONS COMPANY, INC. AND AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

(Gregory D. Daughtry, pro se, on brief).

(Charles F. Midkiff; David A. Obuchowicz; Midkiff, Muncie & Ross, P.C., on brief), for appellees.

Gregory Daughtry (hereinafter “claimant”) appeals a decision of the Workers’

Compensation Commission (hereinafter “the Commission”) finding that he was not entitled to

permanent partial disability benefits in connection with a compensable injury by accident on

April 23, 2003, while claimant was employed by Boar’s Head Provisions Company, Inc.

Claimant raises multiple assignments of error on appeal; however, none of the assignments of

error pertain to a ruling by the Commission.1 Because claimant does not assign error to any

aspect of the decision from which the appeal arises, we do not consider claimant’s arguments.

See Hodnett v. Stanco Masonry, Inc., 58 Va. App. 244, 253, 708 S.E.2d 429, 434 (2011).

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 1 In assignment of error C, appellant asserts that “[t]he Commission erred and stated in the summary of the evidence” that appellant testified he “did not work at all in 2006.” However, in connection with that assignment of error, appellant cites to the factual summary in the deputy commissioner’s decision rather than any ruling by the Commission. Accordingly, we affirm the Commission’s decision. See Daughtry v. Boars Head

Provisions Co., Inc., JCN Claim No. 2151940 (Feb. 2, 2015). We dispense with oral argument

and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code

§ 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.

-2-