COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

JEROME SHAW 

v. Record No. 2176-96-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

TARMAC LONE STAR FEBRUARY 11, 1997 

AND 

LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE 

 COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Jerome Shaw, pro se, on brief). 

 (Glenn S. Phelps; Thompson, Smithers, Newman & 

Wade, on brief), for appellees. 

 Jerome Shaw (claimant) contends that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission (commission) erred in denying his request 

for a change in treating physicians. 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. R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. 

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

Whether a treating physician has released or abandoned his 

patient generally is determined by the express intent of the 

physician. In some cases, the total circumstances must be 

analyzed in order to determine whether discharge, release, or 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

abandonment of the patient was intended. This determination is a 

factual one which must be proved by clear and convincing 

evidence. Jensen Press v. Ale, 1 Va. App. 153, 157, 336 S.E.2d 

522, 524 (1985). 

 In denying claimant's request for a change in treating 

physicians, the commission found as follows: 

 [C]laimant will not be heard to complain that 

treatment from Dr. [A.W.K.] Durrani has been 

unproductive and that his condition has even 

deteriorated under that physician's care, and 

from specialists to whom he was referred for 

treatment, when it is clear from the record 

that the claimant has failed to comply with 

recommendations from the physicians that were 

to help resolve and ameliorate his injury. 

We also do not accept as credible his bare 

statement that Dr. Durrani has declined to 

provide treatment because the physician was 

not paid for his services. The file does 

contain a request from Dr. Durrani to the 

Commission in 1989 seeking to recover for 

nonpayment of services, but nothing 

afterwards. There is also nothing in Dr. 

Durrani's later medical records or reports to 

suggest that care would not be provided, if 

the claimant requests and is prepared to 

accept it. 

The commission also found that the fifteen mile distance from 

claimant's home in Spring Grove, Virginia to Dr. Durrani's office 

in Hopewell, Virginia was not an unreasonable distance for 

claimant to travel for regular medical treatment from the 

authorized physician. 

 The commission's findings are amply supported by the medical 

records and will not be disturbed on appeal. Because claimant 

failed to present any clear and convincing evidence of 
 3 

abandonment or inadequate treatment by Dr. Durrani, we cannot 

find as a matter of law that the commission erred in denying 

claimant's request for a change in treating physicians. 

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

 Affirmed.