Meidan, Incorporated and Technology Insurance Company v. Tina Leavell
749 S.E.2d 201
Va. Ct. App.2013Background
- Leavell injured at work while stacking beer; she reported the injury to her supervisor the day it occurred.
- Employer filed an accident report with the commission on April 15, 2009; Leavell initially alleged April 9, 2009, later amended to April 2, 2009.
- Deputy commissioner found a compensable injury; full commission affirmed on November 30, 2011 and remanded to address disability eligibility.
- On remand, the deputy commissioner issued a decision; employer sought full commission review again.
- Second review opinion (December 10, 2012) affirmed remand findings and stated that the first opinion’s findings were law of the case; Leavell was found to have provided adequate notice.
- The award of benefits to Leavell by the commission was appealed by the employer and ultimately affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability of the first review opinion | Leavell did not contest appealability; focus on final adjudication | Employer contends the first review opinion was not final and thus not immediately appealable | Adverse interlocutory adjudication may be appealed from the final adjudication |
| Law of the case effect of the first opinion | Leavell argues the first opinion’s findings were law of the case | Employer argues the doctrine does not apply to commission proceedings | Even if misapplied, error was harmless; the commission did not lack authority to reconsider findings |
| Adequacy and timeliness of Leavell's notice of injury | Leavell provided timely actual notice within 30 days | Employer argues lack of timely written notice barred benefits | Credible evidence supports timely actual notice within 30 days; prejudice not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Woodlawn Constr. Co., 235 Va. 424 (1988) (interlocutory adjudications may be reviewed on final adjudication)
- Uninsured Employer’s Fund v. Kramer, 32 Va. App. 77 (2000) (interlocutory rulings may be reviewed upon final disposition)
- Williams v. Gloucester Sheriff’s Dep’t, 266 Va. 409 (2003) (motions for rehearing or reconsideration may be entertained by the Commission)
- Holly Farms Foods, Inc. v. Carter, 15 Va. App. 29 (1992) (law-of-the-case concepts and reconsideration in commission proceedings)
- Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Barnes, 32 Va. App. 66 (2000) (written notice requirements and actual notice concepts in workers’ compensation)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Harris, 35 Va. App. 162 (2001) (timeliness and prejudice concepts in notice provisions)
- Department of Game and Inland Fisheries v. Joyce, 147 Va. 89 (1927) (notice and prejudice considerations in workers’ compensation)