Opinion
Record No. 0506-16-1
07-26-2016
LOUISIANA CHEMICAL DISMANTLING COMPANY AND GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY v. CHARLES RUSSELL, III
(Michael P. Del Bueno; Megan Kerwin Clark; Whitt & Del Bueno, PC, on briefs), for appellants. (Gregory E. Camden; Montagna Klein Camden, LLP, on brief), for appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Present: Judges Petty, AtLee and Retired Judge Felton MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Michael P. Del Bueno; Megan Kerwin Clark; Whitt & Del Bueno, PC, on briefs), for appellants. (Gregory E. Camden; Montagna Klein Camden, LLP, on brief), for appellee.
Retired Judge Felton took part in the consideration of this case by designation pursuant to Code § 17.1-400(D).
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. --------
Louisiana Chemical Dismantling Company and Great Divide Insurance Company (LCD herein) appeal a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission finding that Charles Russell, III, was entitled to temporary total disability benefits from April 10, 2015 and continuing. In support of this appeal, LCD argues the Commission erred by (1) finding Russell proved he was totally disabled from all employment beginning April 10, 2015 and he had no duty to market his residual work capacity; (2) finding Russell was totally disabled continuing from April 22, 2015 when he was out of work solely to administer medication every two hours; and (3) awarding total temporary disability benefits from April 10, 2015, when Russell was on notice that he could perform light-duty work and he did not establish efforts to market his residual work capacity.
We have reviewed the record and the Commission's opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the Commission in its final opinion. See Russell v. Louisiana Chem. Dismantling Co., VWC File No. VA02000014699 (Feb. 24, 2016). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.