 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Staunton Correctional Center/Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sanderson4/12/2005
of imposition was appropriately applied.
Avon Prods., Inc. v. Ross, 14 Va. App. 1, 7, 415 S.E.2d 225, 228 (1992) (citingJohn Driggs Co. v.Somers, 228 Va. 729, 324 S.E.2d 694 (1985); quoting Harris v. DiamondConstruction Co., 184 Va. 711, 720, 36 S.E.2d 573, 577 (1946)) (other citation omitted).
The doctrine [of imposition] focuses on an employer's or the commission's use of superior knowledge of or experience with the Workers' Compensation Act or use of economic leverage, which results in an unjust deprivation to the employee of benefits warranted under the Act. Thus, this Court has found that the doctrine applies where, inter alia, the record shows a series of acts by the employer or the commission upon which a claimant naturally and reasonably relies to his or her detriment.
Butler v. City of Virginia Beach, 22 Va. App. 601, 605, 471 S.E.2d 830, 832 (1996) (citations omitted). Thus, " he issue is whether under the totality of the circumstances shown, the actions of the employer and its carrier created an imposition on the commission and the claimant which empowered the commission 'do full and complete justice.'" Avon, 14 Va. App. at 8, 415 S.E.2d at 229.
The testimony of claimant, Fields, and Pultz constitute credible evidence to support the commission's finding that claimant had no reason to question the process through which he was receiving workers' compensation payments or to believe that he needed to file any additional paperwork with the commission in order to preserve his claim for additional benefits. Credible evidence established that a mistake occurred in this case, in that both claimant and employer honestly believed that all had been done to complete the paperwork in order for claimant's additional periods of disability to be covered under workers' compensation. While employer did not make the classic assurances that all had been done, thereby misleading claimant, all parties believed that everything had been done. Credible evidence established a series of acts by employer with respect to the method by which it paid claimant workers' compensation benefits for his lost time, which claimant naturally and reasonably relied upon to his detriment. See Odom v. Red Lobster No. 235, 20 Va. App. 228, 235, 456 S.E.2d 140, 143 (1995).
In addition, employer failed to file the appropriate supplemental memoranda of agreement and agreed statement of fact forms with the commission reflecting its additional payments of compensation benefits to claimant as required by Code § 65.2-701, see Henrico Pub. Utils. v. Taylor, 34 Va. App. 233, 239, 540 S.E.2d 501, 505 (2001) (employer's obligation to file memoranda of agreement not limited to initial award), thereby "frustrat a primary purpose behind the Act - the expedient entry of awards in cases where the parties agree as to the compensability - further prejudicing claimant's rights." Odom, 20 Va. App. at 235, 456 S.E.2d at 143.
Thus, based upon the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that the commission did not err in applying the doctrine of imposition to toll the statute of limitations contained in Code § 65.2-708 and the ninety-day rule contained in Rule 1.2(B).
Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 Virginia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|