Cochran Industries VA and Bituminous Casualty Corporation v. Timothy M. Meadows
63 Va. App. 218
Va. Ct. App. U2014Background
- Claimant Meadows sustained a right-hand injury July 9, 2010 while employed by Cochran Industries VA/Bituminous Casualty.
- Claimant filed an August 23, 2010 Claim for Benefits (Part A only; Part B blank) with a protective filing acknowledged August 26, 2010.
- Claimant received medical treatment for two years; a 2012 surgery plan was denied due to the two-year statute of limitations.
- On September 5, 2012 Claimant filed a new Claim for Benefits (Parts A and B) seeking lifetime medical benefits and surgery; employer denied due to expiration of the statute.
- Deputy Commissioner ruled that Claimant’s original Part A constituted a timely claim under Code § 65.2-601 and awarded medical benefits; Commission affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the original Part A Claim constitute a valid claim under §65.2-601? | Meadows asserts Part A identified necessary elements and thus was a claim. | Cochran asserts lack of stated benefits rendered it not a claim and time-barred. | Yes; Part A fulfilled claim requirements and tolled the statute. |
| May the doctrine of imposition apply to avoid the statute of limitations bar here? | Meadows argues imposition could remedy any error to advance justice. | Cochran contends the commission erred by applying imposition to substitute for a timely claim. | The issue cannot be reviewed because the commission did not rule on imposition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Massey Builders Supply Corp. v. Colgan, 36 Va. App. 496 (Va. App. 2001) (Rule 1:1 flexibility; omission does not automatically defeat a claim)
- Colgan, 533 S.E.2d 146 (2001) (interpretation of claim sufficiency under Rule 1:1)
- Trammel Crow Co. v. Redmond, 12 Va. App. 610 (Va. App. 1991) (letters can constitute a claim if they identify essential elements)
- Cheski v. Arlington Cnty. Pub. Schs., 434 S.E.2d 353 (Va. App. 1993) (fairly apprises commission that a claim is being made)
- Bay Concrete Constr. Co. v. Davis, 600 S.E.2d 144 (Va. App. 2004) (great deference to commission construction of the Act)