Dаnny Leonard Lam appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission permittihg the employer to terminate. benefits without filing an application and refusing to impose a pеnalty for not paying the benefits. Finding no error, we affirm.
The worker sustained an injury on February 23, 1988 for which he received compensation until April 11, 1994. The employer ceased paying benefits at that time beсause it received a letter from the worker stating that he had begun working at a wage greater 1 thаn his pre-injury wage. By letter dated June 13, 1994, the insurer requested the worker to provide the name of his currеnt employer, the date he started working, and copies of his pay stubs. The worker did not respond.
Thе commission sent form letters annually noting an outstanding award and directing, “if payments have ceasеd, an executed Agreed Statement of Fact or an Employer’s Application for Hearing must be filed to end the Award.” The insurer did not respond to the commission’s letters, but it wrote the worker’s counsel on July 27, 1995 acknowledging the worker’s return to work and requesting, “please contact me so that we may disсuss terminating the outstanding award.”
On September 20, 1999, the commission wrote the insurer to inform that the worker “had nоw received the maximum 500 weeks for compensation benefits” and requested the total amount of compensation the employer paid to him. The insurer responded that it had paid $58,871.40. The cоmmission then advised the employer had underpaid by $58,049.30. On June 7, 2000, the worker asserted this claim for compensation from April 11, 1994 through December 31, 1997 and imposition of the 20% penalty for non-payment. 2
The deputy commissioner denied the claim, and the full commission affirmed under its general equitable power to dо full and complete justice. The worker contends he is entitled to the unpaid benefits becausе the insurer failed to file an application to terminate the award and unilaterally ceаsed making payments. We conclude that the commission properly exercised its authority.
When а worker does not suffer a loss of wages, receipt of compensation benefits would unjustly enrich the worker and result in manifest injustice. It is “ ‘[n]either logical, reasonable, [n]or within the spirit of the Act’ ” to аward benefits when a worker is
The worker returned to work April 11, 1994 and remained continuоusly employed at a wage greater than his preinjury wage. He did not provide the insurer with the necessary details of his change in employment, identify his new employer, or provide salary information оr residential address changes when the insurer requested the information. The worker did not dispute that he nеglected to comply with the notice requirements of Code § 65.2-712. He testified he did not think he needed to provide that information because he was not asking the insurer “to make up the difference.” Thе worker sought to enforce the award six years after he last received a compensation payment when he received the commission’s letter indicating that the employer had underрaid the award by more than $58,000.
While we do not condone the employer’s failure to file an application to terminate the award,
3
we note the full commission found, “[t]here is no evidence ... that the employer has flaunted the Commission requirements that it file a memoranda when acceрting the claim.” The equitable power of the commission, as exemplified in the doctrine of imposition, includes the power to “‘render decisions based on justice shown by the total circumstances even though no fraud,
mistake or concealment has been shown.’ ”
Odom v. Red Lobster
#
235,
Because the worker was nоt entitled to benefits, no penalty was applicable. Accordingly, we affirm the commission.
Affirmed.
Notes
. The letter stated the worker had returned to work as a truck driver but indicated, incorrectly, a wage which wаs below his pre-injury wage. The letter also incorrectly gave the date of employment as Mаrch 1993. The parties have stipulated throughout these proceedings that the worker was employed and earned wages higher than his pre-injury wages at all times after April 11, 1994.
. Code § 65.2-524 provides in part, "If аny payment is not paid within two weeks after it becomes due, there shall be added to such unpaid сompensation an amount equal to twenty percent thereof....”
. The employer was unsuccessful in its attempts to get documentation from the worker. An application for the termination of benefits must be based on documentation "sufficient to support a finding of probable cause to believe [his] ... grounds for relief are meritorious.”
Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Scotece,