COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

WILLIAM E. WEBSTER 

v. Record No. 0452-97-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

E.V. WILLIAMS COMPANY, INC. JULY 1, 1997 

AND 

LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (William E. Webster, pro se, on brief). 

 No brief for appellees. 

 William E. Webster (claimant) contends that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission (commission) erred in suspending his 

compensation benefits on the ground that he unjustifiably refused 

selective employment offered to him by E.V. Williams Company, 

Inc. (employer). Upon reviewing the record and opening brief, 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). 

Findings of fact made by the commission will be upheld on appeal 

if supported by credible evidence. See James v. Capitol Steel 

Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1989). 

 The following facts were not in dispute. On March 25, 1996, 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

Dr. Richard K. Neal, claimant's treating physician, released 

claimant to light-duty work with specific restrictions. By 

letter dated March 27, 1996, employer offered claimant a 

light-duty job within those restrictions and directed him to 

report to work on April 3, 1996. On April 3, 1996, claimant 

telephoned employer and stated that he was in pain and unable to 

report for work that day. Claimant did not contact employer 

thereafter. 

 In granting employer's application, the commission made the 

following findings: 

 The claimant contends that his former 

attorney obtained agreement from the employer 

that he would be excused from reporting for 

work on April 3, 1996, because of his 

complaints. However, prior counsel was not 

called as a witness. In addition, the 

claimant was not privy to the conversation 

between counsel and the employer. There is 

no evidence that such an agreement existed, 

other than his testimony, which we find not 

persuasive. Apparently, there was some 

discussion of the claimant obtaining an 

independent evaluation and the submission of 

a medical report based on that evaluation. 

The record contains medical reports from Dr. 

Peter M. Klara, spine surgeon, dated April 

12, 1996, and Dr. M.R. Ross Bullock, 

neurosurgeon, dated May 1, 1996. However, 

those reports are inconclusive and do not 

rebut Dr. Neal's findings, nor his specific 

approval on April 17, 1996, of the job which 

was previously offered the claimant. 

 Dr. Neal's medical records and opinions provide credible 

evidence to support the commission's decision. As fact finder, 

the commission was entitled to give little probative weight to 

the inconclusive reports of Drs. Klara and Bullock. Claimant 
 3 

contended that he could not perform the job offered to him by 

employer. However, claimant never attempted to perform the job 

nor did he provide credible medical evidence to support his 

subjective belief that he could not perform the duties of the 

light-duty job offered to him by employer. 

 Based upon this record, we cannot find that the commission 

erred in granting employer's application and suspending 

claimant's benefits. Accordingly, we affirm the commission's 

decision. 

 Affirmed.