Lysable Transport, Inc. v. Patton
57 Va. App. 408
| Va. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Patton was injured March 2007 while employed by Lysable Transport, Inc.
- Employer/insurer voluntarily paid benefits to Patton after the injury.
- August 2008, the commission warned Patton no written claim or agreement to pay had been submitted.
- Patton filed a claim within two years seeking temporary total disability benefits and lifetime medical costs.
- Deputy commissioner denied compensability; argued de facto award doctrine did not apply since no agreement.
- Full commission reversed, applying de facto award; later argued on merits that Patton’s accident arose out of employment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the de facto award doctrine apply without a working agreement? | Patton argues the employer’s voluntary payments create a de facto award. | Lysable contends no de facto award exists without an agreement or stipulation. | De facto award does not apply without agreement. |
| Did the commission err in resolving compensability on a disjunctive theory? | Patton maintains evidence shows compensability under a single cause. | Employer argues the disjunctive 'or' approach is improper and speculative. | Remand for proper, non-disjunctive burden of proof. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Linen Service v. McGuinn, 5 Va.App. 265 (1987) (premised de facto award on lack of explicit agreement or filing)
- Gowan v. Ryan's Family Steak Houses, 32 Va.App. 459 (2000) (de facto award requires an actual agreement or stipulation)
- White v. Redman Corp., 41 Va.App. 287 (2003) (emphasizes need for explicit compensability agreement)
- Henrico v. Taylor, 34 Va.App. 233 (2001) (settlement-based compensability and temporary benefits context)