751 S.E.2d 679
Va. Ct. App.2013Background
- Claimant sustained a workplace injury on January 19, 2009 and sought workers’ compensation benefits.
- Employer conceded injury but defended denial on a willful violation of a known safety rule under Code § 65.2-306.
- Deputy Commissioner denied benefits on August 24, 2011, finding knowledge of the procedure and willful noncompliance.
- Claimant appealed to the full Commission; after retirement of a commissioner, a review panel included two active commissioners and a retired commissioner designated to participate.
- Panel issued March 20, 2013; two active commissioners affirmed, one dissented, and claimant objected to the retired commissioner’s participation.
- Claimant moved to vacate and for reconsideration; full Commission denied, prompting appeal on authority and quorum grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Full Commission had authority to review with fewer than three statutorily authorized members. | Layne argues panel lacked proper quorum. | Crist argues retirement/recall provisions acceptable under statutes allow designation. | Remand due to lack of proper statutory authority for recalled retired member. |
| Whether recall or designation of a retired commissioner to participate is authorized by statute. | Layne contends no statute authorizes recall/designation for review panels. | Crist relies on general recall provisions and panel rules. | No statutory authorization for recall/designation existed; panel voidable. |
| Whether the commission had a valid quorum and proper composition for a majority decision. | Layne asserts three statutorily authorized commissioners did not participate. | Crist contends panel composition complied with applicable procedures. | Panel composition invalid; decision voidable and reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hitt Constr. v. Pratt, 53 Va. App. 422 (2009) (voidable decision when not properly constituted)
- Kim v. Sportswear, 10 Va. App. 460 (1990) (statutory interpretation of agency authority)
- Barzingus v. Wilheim, 306 F.3d 17 (10th Cir. 2010) (arbitration standard analogy)
- Rasmussen v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 233 (1999) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Advanced Marine Enters. v. PRC, Inc., 256 Va. 106 (1998) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning)
- Barr v. Town & Country Props., Inc., 240 Va. 292 (1990) (interpretation of statutory language)