COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis 

RALPH ALLEN FRYE 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0826-98-3 PER CURIAM 

 AUGUST 25, 1998 

REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY AND 

 INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY 

 OF NORTH AMERICA 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Rhonda L. Overstreet; Lumsden, Overstreet & 

Hansen, on brief), for appellant. 

 (Scott C. Ford; Joshua M. Wulf; Midkiff & 

Hiner, on brief), for appellees. 

 Ralph Allen Frye contends that the Workers' Compensation 

Commission erred in finding that his employer, Reynolds Metals 

Company, was not responsible for the cost of medical treatment 

provided to Frye by Dr. Pierce Nelson, a neuropsychiatrist. Upon 

reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude 

that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily 

affirm the commission's decision. Rule 5A:27. 

 On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the prevailing party below. See R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. 

Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). In 

ruling that employer was not responsible for the cost of Dr. 

Nelson's treatment, the commission found as follows: 

 It is uncontradicted that [Frye] came under 

the care of Dr. Nelson as a result of a 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 -2- 

referral from an attorney who was handling a 

Social Security matter. Dr. Nelson did not 

examine [Frye] in the context of the worker's 

compensation case. There is no evidence in 

the record that any treating physician has 

suggested, indicated, or otherwise referred 

[Frye] for any psychiatric treatment. With 

this evidence before us, we cannot find that 

the treatment by Dr. Nelson is authorized. 

It is well settled that an employer is not 

responsible for unauthorized treatment. This 

is particularly true in the current case 

where the treating physicians have failed to 

indicate the necessity of such treatment and 

[Frye] has failed to seek timely 

authorization from the carrier or the 

Commission. 

These findings are amply supported by the record. 

 "Without a referral from an authorized treating physician, 

Code § 65.2-603(C) provides for treatment by an unauthorized 

physician in an 'emergency' or 'for other good reason.'" 

Shenandoah Prods., Inc. v. Whitlock, 15 Va. App. 207, 212, 421 

S.E.2d 483, 485 (1992). 

 [I]f the employee, without authorization but 

in good faith, obtains medical treatment 

different from that provided by the employer, 

and it is determined that the treatment 

provided by the employer was inadequate 

treatment for the employee's condition and 

the unauthorized treatment received by the 

claimant was medically reasonable and 

necessary treatment, the employer should be 

responsible, notwithstanding the lack of 

prior approval by the employer. 

Id. at 212, 421 S.E.2d at 486. 

 Frye did not present evidence to prove that he sought the 

unauthorized treatment from Dr. Nelson in good faith, that the 

treating physicians rendered inadequate treatment, or that the 
 -3- 

unauthorized treatment was medically reasonable and necessary. 

As fact finder, the commission was entitled to accept the opinion 

of Dr. Jim Brasfield, an authorized treating physician, who 

discerned no evidence of psychiatric problems during his 

treatment of Frye. In addition, the commission was entitled to 

reject the contrary opinion of Dr. Nelson, who did not begin 

treating Frye until approximately two years after his industrial 

accident. See Hungerford Mechanical Corp. v. Hobson, 11 Va. App. 

675, 677, 401 S.E.2d 213, 215 (1991). 

 Frye's argument that the commission was bound by dicta 

contained in a footnote to its January 11, 1996 review opinion is 

meritless. As the commission correctly determined, "[t]he issue 

of causal relationship between Dr. Nelson's treatment was not 

then before the Commission and has not previously been 

adjudicated." 

 Based upon this record, we cannot say as a matter of law 

that the commission erred in concluding that the employer was not 

responsible for the cost of Dr. Nelson's unauthorized treatment. 

 For the reasons stated, we affirm the commission's decision. 

 Affirmed.