National Express Corporation v. Mary Pritchett, 1270164

Mary Pritchett injured her right hand and right knee at work on February 7, 2015 and received medical restrictions (no occupational driving, limited lifting, alternate sitting/standing, brace; later allowed occasional simple grasping, fine manipulation, keyboarding).
She had concurrent pre-injury earnings from Arlington City Schools and National Express; National Express offered a modified light-duty assignment in August 2015 which Pritchett refused. An award for temporary total disability began February 8, 2015.
After restrictions eased, National Express sought termination/suspension of benefits; Pritchett began an active job search in December 2015, registering with the VEC, using internet job sites, visiting the VEC weekly for screening assistance, and applying to over 30 positions (customer service, receptionist, cashier, help desk, etc.).
A deputy commissioner found Pritchett credible and concluded she reasonably marketed her residual wage-earning capacity, awarding continuing temporary partial disability benefits beginning December 15, 2015.
The Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission affirmed, rejecting comparisons to cases where claimants applied only for jobs they could not perform or made very limited efforts; appellants appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the factual findings for credible evidence and affirmed the Commission’s award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Pritchett reasonably marketed her residual wage-earning capacity to justify continuing temporary partial disability benefits	Pritchett conducted a diligent, restriction‑aware job search (VEC registration, weekly visits, internet searches, >30 applications) and applied only to jobs she believed she could perform	Appellants argued her efforts were insufficient or unreasonable (applied for unsuitable work, limited or unsupported job contacts) and thus she failed to meet her burden to market her capacity	The Commission’s factual finding that Pritchett reasonably marketed her residual capacity is supported by credible evidence and is affirmed by the Court of Appeals; benefits continue from Dec. 15, 2015

Ford Motor Co. v. Favinger, 275 Va. 83 (articulates standard that Commission’s factual findings on marketing residual capacity are conclusive if supported by credible evidence)
Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Bateman, 4 Va. App. 459 (discusses factors and reasonableness of job‑search efforts and warns against undue self‑imposed limitations)
Nat'l Linen Serv. v. McGuinn, 8 Va. App. 267 (lists criteria for evaluating reasonable job‑marketing efforts)
Wall Street Deli, Inc. v. O’Brien, 32 Va. App. 217 (addresses appellate deference to Commission’s credibility and fact findings)
Stillwell v. Lewis Tree Serv., 47 Va. App. 471 (explains appellate view of evidence in favor of the prevailing party below)
Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. Harrison, 228 Va. 598 (places burden on employee to prove reasonable effort to procure suitable work)