Nicholas Maldonado v. Federal Express Corporation, 0027174

Background

Claimant (Maldonado) injured right wrist/shoulder at work on Jan 8, 2009 while employed by Federal Express; initial benefits claim(s) filed in 2009 sought medical treatment but did not request disability benefits.
Commission issued a "medical award only" June 19, 2009 and warned any wage-loss claim must be filed within two years of the injury.
Claimant submitted additional correspondence in 2010–2012 about treatment and anticipated surgery but explicitly characterized a 2011 filing as "for records purpose only." No request for permanent disability benefits was made within 36 months of the accident.
On Aug 27, 2015 claimant filed a benefits claim asserting a 24% permanent impairment of the right arm and later underwent shoulder replacement in Oct 2015.
Deputy commissioner and the full Commission held the 2015 claim untimely under Code § 65.2-708(B); appellate court affirmed, concluding earlier filings preserved only medical benefits, not a claim for permanent partial disability.

Issues

Issue	Maldonado's Argument	Federal Express's Argument	Held
Whether claimant’s 2009/2011 filings preserved a later (2015) claim for permanent partial disability	2009 forms (Part A and later Part B addressing medical treatment) preserved the claim; claimant relied on form language and believed he could seek disability later	Earlier submissions preserved only medical benefits; claimant never requested disability within the statutory period	Claim was untimely; earlier filings did not preserve a new claim for permanent partial disability
Which statute/timetable governs a change-in-condition disability claim when no compensation paid	Argues form preserved rights under general remedial purpose of the Act	Employer: § 65.2-708(B) controls, providing 36 months from accident to file when no compensation has been paid	§ 65.2-708(B) applies; claimant had until Jan 8, 2012 to file
Whether completion of Part A alone constitutes a claim for all benefits including future disability	Relies on Cochran (Part A sufficient under § 65.2-601) to argue initial filing preserved future claims	Distinguishes Cochran: that case preserved additional medical benefits, not a new permanent disability claim under § 65.2-708(B)	Cochran is distinguishable; Part A preserved claims under § 65.2-601 for initial medical benefits but did not preserve a later, distinct disability claim
Whether imposition doctrine should save claimant from time bar	Argues he relied on form language and should not be penalized for lack of expertise	Employer did not concede; Commission did not invoke imposition	Court declined to consider imposition because Commission did not rule on it; appellate court will not consider it sua sponte

Key Cases Cited

Masonite Holdings, Inc. v. Cubbage, 53 Va. App. 13 (2008) (Workers’ Compensation Act is remedial and construed liberally)
Corporate Res. Mgmt. v. Southers, 51 Va. App. 118 (2008) (standard for sufficiency of filings as claims; claims sufficiency is fact question)
Stillwell v. Lewis Tree Serv., Inc., 47 Va. App. 471 (2006) (appellate review construes record in favor of prevailing party below)
Tuck v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 47 Va. App. 276 (2005) (statute-of-limitations questions reviewed de novo)
Massey Builders Supply Corp. v. Colgan, 36 Va. App. 496 (2001) (claimant bears burden to prove timely filing)
Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Mease, 62 Va. App. 190 (2013) (Code § 65.2-601 two-year filing bar)
Mayberry v. Alcoa Bldg. Prods., 18 Va. App. 18 (1994) (application of statutory filing deadlines)
Cochran Indus. VA v. Meadows, 63 Va. App. 218 (2014) (Part A filing preserved additional medical benefits under § 65.2-601; distinguishable from new disability claims)
Shawley v. Shea-Ball Constr. Co., 216 Va. 442 (1975) (initial claim for certain body parts does not preserve later claims for different body parts)
Butler v. City of Va. Beach, 22 Va. App. 601 (1996) (imposition doctrine permits equitable relief when claimant lacks expertise)
Hodnett v. Stanco Masonry, Inc., 58 Va. App. 244 (2011) (appellate courts will not consider issues the Commission did not decide)