Ford Motor Co. v. Gordon
708 S.E.2d 846
| Va. | 2011Background
- Gordon sustained a compensable injury on January 9, 2000, at Ford’s Norfolk plant.
- The Commission awarded multiple periods of temporary total/partial disability; the last award was January 13, 2003, with final direct payment on February 23, 2003.
- Gordon continued working in light-duty roles, with wages at or above pre-injury levels during several periods (Oct 2000–Jan 2001; Apr 2002–Jun 2002; Apr 2003–Sep 2006).
- Gordon filed a change-in-condition application on September 25, 2006 seeking temporary total and partial disability benefits due to a lost-wages condition.
- Ford argued the application was time-barred under Code § 65.2-708(A); Gordon argued § 65.2-708(C) tolled the limit by treating wages during light-duty periods as compensation.
- The Commission held the tolling provision could not restart with later awards; the Court of Appeals reversed, applying tolling anew with each subsequent award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §65.2-708(C) tolling restart with each new award? | Gordon: tolling restarts for each new award treated as compensation. | Ford: tolling occurs only once; after last paid award, no restart. | Tolling runs anew with each successive award. |
| Is §65.2-708(A) tolled by wages under §65.2-708(C) for multiple awards? | Gordon: wages during light-duty periods extend the filing window for later awards. | Ford: tolling applies only up to the initial period and cannot be restarted by later awards. | Wages under §65.2-708(C) tolling apply to each award; A runs anew. |
| Does the statutory scheme function on an award-by-award basis? | Gordon: statute tolls across successive awards for the same injury. | Ford: tolling is constrained; does not create multiple tolling periods independent of successive awards. | Scheme operates on an award-by-award basis; tolling applicable per award. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meeks v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 798 (2007) (plain-meaning analysis and harmonization of statute)
- Oraee v. Breeding, 270 Va. 488 (2005) (interpretation of statutory harmonization and intent)
- Conyers v. Martial Arts World of Richmond, Inc., 273 Va. 96 (2007) (statutory interpretation of tolling and construction)
- Gordon v. Ford Motor Co., 55 Va.App. 363 (2009) (Court of Appeals held tolling anew per award)
- Gordon v. Ford Motor Co., 53 Va.App. 616 (2009) (Court of Appeals held tolling per award, with interpretation of §65.2-708(C))