Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Frank, Humphreys and Agee Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia

KENNETH P. THOMPSON v. Record No. 0206-02-2 OPINION BY JUDGE ROBERT P. FRANK AUGUST 13, 2002

BRENCO, INC. AND LUMBERMEN'S MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION B. Mayes Marks, Jr. (Marks and Williams, on brief), for appellant. S. Vernon Priddy III (William B. Judkins; Sands Anderson Marks & Miller, on brief), for appellees.

Kenneth P. Thompson (claimant) appeals from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission (commission) denying claimant's change of condition application. On appeal, claimant

contends the commission erred in finding it did not have jurisdiction over his claim and in finding his claim failed to establish a causal connection between his original, compensated injury and his new injury. While we disagree with the

commission's finding regarding its jurisdiction, we affirm the denial of benefits. Background Claimant was an employee of Brenco, Inc. (employer). He

injured his left hip and femoral shaft, his right forearm, his

head, and his left ear on December 13, 1995, when a ton of metal tubing fell on him at work. A Memorandum of Agreement between

claimant and employer was filed with the commission on February 23, 1996; the commission approved the agreement and entered an award order in March 1996. Claimant continued to have problems with his limbs, especially his left knee. His legs began to "give out" on him,

although he usually could stop himself from falling to the ground. Claimant testified his legs "kept on giving out" after

his 1996 surgeries; however, the medical records indicate claimant did not know when his legs began "giving out." The

records indicate he was improving until he saw Dr. Gurpal Bhuller in December 1999 and had a "new problem" of his left knee "giving out." This visit is the first indication in the

medical records that claimant's knee was "giving out" and causing him to fall. At the hearing, claimant remembered only

one fall with any specificity, when he fell on his back at work and hit his head on the floor, sometime in December 1999. Dr. Bhuller became suspicious that this problem "represent[ed] spinal cause or spinal pathology." Dr. Bhuller

ordered an EMG study, which indicated "the possibility of cervical spinal stenosis." The doctor then ordered an MRI,

which confirmed claimant had "a tight spinal stenosis."

- 2 -

Dr. Bhuller told claimant that the spinal stenosis might not be related to his 1995 injuries and later indicated to employer that the stenosis was not related to those earlier injuries. Claimant was referred to a neurosurgeon and was examined by Dr. David Geckle. Dr. Geckle reviewed the MRI and found "what

look[ed] like a congenitally narrow lumbar canal with four shortened pedicles." A CT scan showed "[c]ervical spondylosis In May

at the C5-6 level with moderate foraminal stenosis."

2000, Dr. Geckle performed a verebrectomy on claimant's neck "with autologous iliac crest graft fusion and planting" in hopes of correcting the problem. Claimant filed a change of condition application with the commission on July 12, 2000. Included in the filed documents He marked

was a typed questionnaire, signed by Dr. Geckle.

"Yes" on the form, indicating claimant's "cervical problems" were "aggravated[d], accelerate[d], and/or exacerbate[d]" by the December 1995 accident, contributing to the need for the verebrectomy. No explanation for this conclusion was provided. 1

Employer asked several doctors to examine claimant's medical records. Dr. Leonard Green, a neurologist, found no

indication that claimant suffered a cervical injury in 1995 and concluded the condition was congenital. He explained:

Nothing in the medical records suggests claimant's condition could be aggravated by his falls, although falls are considered a symptom of his condition. - 3 -

1

The claimant's history of his cervical spinal problem is most consistent with natural progression related to ordinary "wear and tear" which almost always occurs with these spinal canal abnormalities. Consequently, it is clear and convincing that the claimant's cervical spinal canal problem was not causally related to the industrial accident of December 13, 1995. Dr. Ralph Hagan, a neurologist, also reviewed claimant's records. He explained that claimant's problems were typical of Dr. Hagan

patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. concluded:

As Dr. Bhuller stated in his letter of [February 1, 2000], this condition is not causally related to his worker's compensation injury of [December 13, 1995]. Certainly he would have had symptoms prior to December 1999 if this condition were related to his worker's compensation injury four years earlier. The only witness at the hearing before the deputy commissioner was claimant. After the hearing, claimant was The

awarded $236.76 per week for temporary total disability. deputy commissioner accepted Dr. Geckle's "opinion" that

claimant's cervical condition was aggravated by the accident. The full commission reversed this decision. First, the

commission found it did not have jurisdiction over the case because the claim was based on a "compensable consequence of a compensable consequence," referring to Amoco Foam Prods. Co. v. Johnson, 257 Va. 29, 510 S.E.2d 443 (1999). The commission also

- 4 -

found the cervical condition was unrelated to the accident, accepting Drs. Bhuller's, Green's, and Hagan's opinions. Analysis Claimant admits his cervical problems were not solely caused by the 1995 accident. He argues instead that the

accident exacerbated a pre-existing, congenital condition and, therefore, is compensable. He also argues the commission had

jurisdiction to consider his change of condition claim. The commission had jurisdiction to consider this claim. The commission's only basis for rejecting jurisdiction was based on Amoco. 2 However, the Supreme Court did not address the issue Rather, the Court examined the

of jurisdiction in that case.

record and determined no "causal connection between the original injury and the November 1995 injury" was established. 33, 510 S.E.2d at 444. Id. at

The analysis explained what a claimant

must prove to receive an award, not what must be alleged before the commission can consider the merits. See id. Clearly, as

the Supreme Court did examine the merits of the claim, Amoco does not limit the commission's jurisdiction. The commission here found, in the alternative, that claimant had not established a causal connection between the

The change of condition claim was timely filed under Code

Download 0206022.pdf

Virginia Law