COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

ACE CARPENTRY, INC., ET AL. 

v. Record No. 0937-95-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

DANIEL GREER OCTOBER 17, 1995 

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Lisa C. Healey; Siciliano, Ellis, Dyer & Boccarosse, 

on brief), for appellants. 

 (Terry L. Armentrout, on brief), for appellee. 

 Ace Carpentry, Inc. and its insurer (hereinafter 

collectively referred to as "employer") contend that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission erred in reinstating the compensation 

benefits of Daniel Greer ("claimant") as of August 3, 1994. The 

commission held that claimant proved that he was justified in 

refusing selective employment offered to him by employer. 

Specifically, employer argues that the commission erred in 

considering employer's August 3, 1994 application together with 

its September 16, 1994 application rather than requiring claimant 

to file a change in condition application. 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. 

 

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

designated for publication. 

 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). 

Factual findings made by the commission will be upheld if 

supported by credible evidence. James v. Capitol Steel Constr. 

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

 In its August 3, 1994 application, employer alleged that 

claimant unjustifiably refused light-duty work offered to him by 

letters dated July 14, 1994 and July 21, 1994. In its September 

16, 1994 application, employer alleged that claimant 

unjustifiably refused selective employment offered to him by 

letter dated August 24, 1994. 

 As of July 5, 1994, claimant was restricted from lifting 

more than fifty pounds on a routine basis. On July 22, 1994, 

Dr. Geraldine K. Richter, the treating physician, released 

claimant to light-duty work and restricted him from lifting over 

twenty pounds. Dr. Richter also instructed claimant to continue 
 2 

his physical therapy. On August 22, 1994, Dr. Richter restricted 

claimant from lifting over twenty pounds and from riding in an 

automobile for more than one-half hour. 

 Claimant testified that during the summer of 1994, he 

attended two hour physical therapy sessions, three days per week. 

 The physical therapy office closed at 4:00 p.m. and was located 

in Manassas, Virginia, two hours from claimant's home. Friends 

or family members were required to drive claimant to his physical 

therapy sessions. The light-duty position offered by employer 

was located in Alexandria, Virginia, two hours from claimant's 

home in Winchester. Claimant testified that he did not accept 

the offer because of the long drive, dizziness, and interference 

with his physical therapy sessions. Employer's office manager 

testified that the light-duty position created for claimant was a 

forty-hour per week job and did not require lifting over twenty 

pounds. Employer did not inform claimant that the job could be 

tailored to accommodate his physical therapy schedule. 

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

that the commission erred in finding that the light-duty job 

offered by employer was not suitable to claimant's restrictions 

as of July 22, 1994 and that claimant was justified in refusing 

it. Claimant's testimony and the medical records support the 

commission's finding that claimant's need for physical therapy 

and the driving restriction made the job incompatible with his 

medical restrictions as of July 22, 1994. 

 In addition, it was within the commission's discretion, in 

the interest of judicial economy, to consider both of employer's 

applications together instead of requiring claimant to file a 

change in condition application. See Oak Hill Nursing Home, Inc. 

v. Back, 221 Va. 411, 418, 270 S.E.2d 723, 727 (1980) 

(consolidation of claims within discretion of commission). "[The 

commission] is not bound by statutory or common law rules of 

pleading or evidence nor by technical rules of practice." Rule 

2.2, Rules of the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission. The 

commission has statutory authority "to conduct a review for 

change of condition on its own motion at any time, subject to due 

process limitations." Sergio's Pizza v. Soncini, 1 Va. App. 370, 

375, 339 S.E.2d 204, 207 (1986). See also Code § 65.2-708(A). 

The commission properly placed the burden of proof upon the 

claimant to show he was justified in refusing employer's offers. 

 Employer was on notice that claimant's medical restrictions had 

changed as of July 22, 1994. Thus, employer suffered no 

prejudice because of the commission's action. 

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

 Affirmed.