COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bumgardner, Kelsey and Senior Judge Hodges 

GLORIA S. BROWN 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 3311-02-1 PER CURIAM 

 JULY 1, 2003 

VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE/ 

 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Gloria S. Brown, pro se, on brief). 

 (Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General; Judith 

Williams Jagdmann, Deputy Attorney General; 

Edward M. Macon, Senior Assistant Attorney 

General; Scott John Fitzgerald, Assistant 

Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. 

 Gloria S. Brown (claimant) contends the Workers' 

Compensation Commission erred in finding that employer proved 

claimant was fully able to perform the duties of her pre-injury 

work as of January 15, 2001. Upon reviewing the record and the 

parties' briefs, 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). 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 -

"General principles of workman's compensation law provide that 

'in an application for review of any award on the ground of 

change in condition, the burden is on the party alleging such 

change to prove his allegations by a preponderance of the 

evidence.'" Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Bateman, 4 Va. App. 

459, 464, 359 S.E.2d 98, 101 (1987) (quoting Pilot Freight

Carriers, Inc. v. Reeves, 1 Va. App. 435, 438-39, 339 S.E.2d 

570, 572 (1986)). Factual findings 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). 

 In granting employer's application seeking to terminate 

claimant's outstanding award for temporary total disability 

benefits, the commission found as follows: 

 Dr. [Charles E.] Wilhelm's January 3, 

2001, letter to the claimant clearly shows 

that he considered her physical 

capabilities, as well as the requirements of 

her job before releasing her to preinjury 

employment. In his November 8, 2000, 

report, Dr. Wilhelm noted that the claimant 

was concerned that she was unable to return 

to work, and he suggested a meeting between 

himself, the claimant, her work supervisor, 

[Susan] Jones[, her R.N. rehab specialist], 

and [Sally] Wooldridge[, her hand 

therapist,] to establish any necessary work 

restrictions. Although there is a dispute 

regarding whether the claimant refused to 

attend that meeting, or was not invited, 

there is no evidence to contradict 

Dr. Wilhelm's statement that he reviewed the 

physical requirements of her job as 

described by her supervisor and the 
- 3 -

department supervisor before he released her 

to return to work. 

 In her written statement, the claimant 

asserts that she "knows more about what type 

of job she does than those reporting to the 

doctor from the employer." However, we find 

that her supervisor and the department 

supervisor were able to adequately testify 

regarding her job description. 

 After meeting with her supervisor and 

the department supervisor to determine her 

job requirements, the claimant's treating 

physician released her to preinjury 

employment. Although the most recent 

medical reports are from Dr. [Boyd W.] 

Haynes[, III], we note that he did not 

recommend any work restrictions. There is 

no medical evidence to support the 

claimant's testimony that she is unable to 

return to her preinjury job. Furthermore, 

there is no evidence that she unsuccessfully 

attempted to return to work. 

 Dr. Wilhelm's unequivocal medical records and reports 

provide credible evidence to support the commission's finding 

that claimant was released to perform all of the duties of her 

pre-injury work without restrictions as of January 15, 2001. As 

fact finder, the commission was entitled to accept Dr. Wilhelm's 

unequivocal and well-considered opinion, and to reject 

claimant's testimony to the contrary. Because credible evidence 

supports the commission's findings, we are bound by them on 

appeal. 

 Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision. 

Affirmed.