Mark Case v. United Parcel Services and LIberty Insurance Corporation, 1866164

Mark Case, a 52-year-old long‑time UPS truck driver, injured his left knee at work on November 5, 2013; the injury was compensable and he received medical care and intermittent disability benefits.
On November 6, 2015, his orthopedic surgeon cleared him for light‑duty work (limited walking/standing, carrying small items, lifting ≤10 lbs.) and prescribed only non‑narcotic pain medication (Advil).
UPS told Case no light‑duty work was available; Case did not seek other employment from November 6, 2015 through February 14, 2016 (when he underwent authorized knee replacement surgery).
At hearing, Case testified he continued taking previously prescribed oxycodone (despite current non‑narcotic prescription), lacked transportation, and said he would have accepted light duty at UPS and stopped narcotics if offered.
The deputy commissioner found Case was not totally disabled during the period and had failed to market his residual work capacity; the full Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission unanimously affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claimant sufficiently marketed his residual capacity while on light duty (Nov. 6, 2015–Feb. 14, 2016)	Case: He was impaired by narcotic medication and had no transportation; UPS denied light duty, so marketing was excused.	Carrier/Commission: Medical evidence showed only light‑duty restrictions; Case made no job‑search efforts and thus failed to meet his burden to market remaining capacity.	Affirmed: Commission found credible evidence Case was not totally disabled and failed to make reasonable efforts to market his capacity.
Whether the Commission erred in refusing to consider after‑discovered evidence submitted to the full Commission	Case: Proffered pharmacy record and drug‑effect information were new and should be considered to show impairment.	Commission: Rules permit after‑hearing evidence only if absolutely necessary; the proffered material was cumulative, not timely, and would not change the outcome.	Affirmed: Commission properly declined to admit evidence (Tramadol prescription was outside period at issue and could have been discovered earlier).

Ford Motor Co. v. Favinger, 275 Va. 83 (Va. 2008) (employee must show reasonable efforts to market remaining work capacity to obtain partial disability benefits)
McKellar v. Northrop Grumman Shipbldg., Inc., 290 Va. 349 (Va. 2015) (presumption that injured employee receiving temporary partial disability can work restricted duty or obtain another job)
Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Bateman, 4 Va. App. 459 (Va. Ct. App. 1987) (reasonableness of job‑search efforts is case‑specific)
Nat’l Linen Serv. v. McGuinn, 8 Va. App. 267 (Va. Ct. App. 1989) (factors to assess adequacy of efforts to find work)
Williams v. People’s Life Ins. Co., 19 Va. App. 530 (Va. Ct. App. 1995) (standards for admitting after‑discovered evidence)
Georgia Pacific Corp. v. Dancy, 24 Va. App. 430 (Va. Ct. App. 1997) (Commission justified in excluding post‑hearing evidence obtainable earlier and not adding new medical information)
Arellano v. Pam E. K’s Donuts Shop, 26 Va. App. 478 (Va. Ct. App. 1998) (Commission has authority to interpret and enforce its rules)
Estate of Kiser v. Pulaski Furniture Co., 41 Va. App. 293 (Va. Ct. App. 2003) (Commission’s interpretation of rules receives great deference)