COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Fitzpatrick, Overton and Senior Judge Hodges 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

FRANCEON A. FORD 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 2637-95-3 JUDGE JOHANNA L. FITZPATRICK 

 JULY 16, 1996 

C. M. OFFRAY & SON, INC. AND 

 ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA 

 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 Barbara Hudson for appellant. 

 Richard D. Lucas (Frank K. Friedman; Wood 

Rogers & Hazlegrove, P.L.C., on brief), for 

appellees. 

 Franceon A. Ford (claimant) appeals from a decision of the 

commission denying her application for workers' compensation 

benefits. She argues that the commission erred in: (1) finding 

that she failed to prove that her carpal tunnel syndrome was a 

compensable occupational disease, and (2) admitting documents 

obtained from her doctor by the attorney for C. M. Offray & Son, 

Inc. (employer) without notice to her. Because carpal tunnel 

syndrome is not a compensable occupational disease, we dismiss 

the case. 

 BACKGROUND 

 Claimant worked for employer for five years as a baby 

blocker, a job that involved repetitive hand movements rolling 

ribbon onto a machine. On November 4, 1994, Dr. Tullio L. 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

Coccia, claimant's treating physician, diagnosed her as suffering 

from repetitive trauma syndrome/flexor tendinitis and carpal 

tunnel syndrome. In a January 6, 1995 letter, Dr. Coccia stated 

that claimant's condition was caused by her employment as a baby 

blocker. Claimant asked whether Dr. Coccia could state that her 

condition was an occupational disease, and Dr. Coccia amended the 

last sentence of the letter to read as follows: "I feel that 

this is definitely related to her job and is in fact an 

occupational disease." Dr. Coccia dated the revised letter 

January 25, 1995. 

 Employer's attorney contacted Dr. Coccia and asked him to 

clarify his January 25, 1995 letter. In a March 30, 1995 letter 

responding to the request, Dr. Coccia stated that carpal tunnel 

syndrome is "not a disease process." Dr. Coccia's March 30, 1995 

letter was not provided to claimant or her attorney. Employer 

introduced the March 30, 1995 letter and the January 6, 1995 

letter at the May 3, 1995 hearing before the deputy commissioner, 

and claimant objected to the admission of the January 6, 1995 

letter. 

 The commission denied claimant benefits, holding that she 

failed to meet the threshold burden of proving that her condition 

was an occupational disease. 

CARPAL TUNNEL SYNDROME AS OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE

 After the parties filed briefs in this case, employer moved 

to dismiss the case based upon the Supreme Court of Virginia's 
 3 

opinion in Stenrich Group v. Jemmott, 251 Va. 186, 467 S.E.2d 795 

(1996). In Stenrich Group, the Supreme Court held that "jobrelated impairments resulting from cumulative trauma caused by 

repetitive motion, however labeled or however defined, are, as a 

matter of law, not compensable under the present provisions of 

the Act." 251 Va. at 199, 467 S.E.2d at 802. Claimant concedes 

that Stenrich Group controls and that her carpal tunnel syndrome 

is not compensable under the Act. 

 ADMISSION OF DOCUMENT OBTAINED WITHOUT NOTICE TO CLAIMANT

 Although claimant's carpal tunnel syndrome is not 

compensable as an occupational disease, she argues that this 

Court should still address the issue of whether the commission 

erred in admitting documents obtained from her treating physician 

by employer's attorney without notice to claimant. 

 "'The duty of this court as of every other judicial 

tribunal, is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which 

can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot 

questions or abstract propositions.'" Jackson v. Marshall, 19 

Va. App. 628, 635, 454 S.E.2d 23, 27 (1995) (quoting Potts v. 

Mathieson Alkali Works, 165 Va. 196, 225, 181 S.E. 521, 533 

(1935)). Because resolution of claimant's carpal tunnel claim 

leaves nothing more to be done with this case, the issue of 

whether the commission erred in considering Dr. Coccia's March 

30, 1995 letter to employer's attorney is rendered moot. 

 Accordingly, the case is dismissed. 
 4 

 Dismissed.