Hodnett v. Stanco Masonry, Inc.
58 Va. App. 244
| Va. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Claimant Hodnett sustained a compensable injury and received temporary total disability benefits under a 2007 award.
- Employer Stanco Masonry filed an application to terminate the 2007 award on Oct. 29, 2008, based on claimant's purported return to work on Mar. 14, 2007.
- Claimant sought a certificate of enforcement under Code § 65.2-710, requesting the award be certified for enforcement in circuit court.
- A deputy commissioner denied noncompliance findings but agreed to certify the award for authentication, stating the certification was not under § 65.2-710.
- The circuit court ultimately received a certificate of authentication; the full commission affirmed that the certificate was for authentication only, not enforcement.
- Claimant appealed, challenging the commission’s interpretation and the certification process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the certificate was issued for enforcement under § 65.2-710. | Hodnett argues the certificate serves enforcement. | Stanco argues the certificate was authentication only. | Certificate issued under general authority, not § 65.2-710. |
| Whether there was evidence of noncompliance to support enforcement. | Hodnett asserts noncompliance evidence is not required to issue a certificate. | Stanco contends evidence of noncompliance must be found for enforcement. | Issue not reviewable on appeal due to lack of preservation. |
| Whether Black v. A.F.B. Contractors and due process/rules interpretation affect this case. | Hodnett relies on Black to argue lack of need for noncompliance evidence. | Stanco argues Black supports authentication authority; due process arguments are preserved for reconsideration. | Black interpreted; court rejects reliance on it to require § 65.2-710; issues deemed not preserved for review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vanzant v. Southern Bending Co., 143 Va. 244, 129 S.E. 268 (1925) (Va.) (commission's factual findings are binding on appeal; interpretation of orders on appeal)
- Rusty's Welding Serv., Inc. v. Gibson, 29 Va.App. 119, 510 S.E.2d 255 (1999) (Va. App.) (commission may interpret its own orders in determining import of decisions)
- Gray v. Rhoads, 268 Va. 81, 597 S.E.2d 93 (2004) (Va.) (plain meaning of statute controls when terms are clear and unambiguous)
- Town of Waverly Law Enforcement v. Owens, 51 Va.App. 277, 657 S.E.2d 161 (2008) (Va. App.) (appellate review of statutory construction and agency interpretation)
- Newman v. Newman, 42 Va.App. 557, 593 S.E.2d 533 (2004) (Va. App.) (avoid dicta; appellate review for essential issues only)