COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

W.C. HALL GENERAL HAULING 

 TRUCKING, INC. AND LEGION 

 INSURANCE COMPANY MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

v. Record No. 0513-97-4 JULY 8, 1997 

EDWARD BUTLER BLAINE 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (M. Lynn McHale; Siciliano, Ellis, Dyer & 

Boccarosse, on brief), for appellants. 

 (Lawrence J. Pascal; Ashcraft & Gerel, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 W.C. Hall General Hauling Trucking and its insurer 

(hereinafter collectively referred to as "employer") contend that 

the Workers' Compensation Commission (commission) erred in 

finding that Edward Butler Blaine (claimant) proved that he made 

a good faith effort to market his residual work capacity between 

December 12, 1995 and April 4, 1996. 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. 

 The standard of review applicable to this case is as 

follows: 

 This appeal does not present a case of 

conflicting evidence or a dispute concerning 

the commission's findings of fact. When the 

issue is the sufficiency of the evidence and 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

there is no conflict in the evidence, the 

issue is purely a question of law. This 

Court is not bound by the legal 

determinations made by the commission. "[W]e 

must inquire to determine if the correct 

legal conclusion has been reached." 

Cibula v. Allied Fibers & Plastics, 14 Va. App. 319, 324, 416 

S.E.2d 708, 711 (1992) (quoting City of Norfolk v. Bennett, 205 

Va. 877, 880, 140 S.E.2d 655, 657 (1965) (citations omitted)), 

aff'd, 245 Va. 337, 428 S.E.2d 905 (1993). 

 In ruling that claimant proved he made a good faith effort 

to market his residual capacity between December 12, 1995 and 

April 4, 1996, the commission recited the following facts: 

 The claimant has worked as a truck 

driver for over thirty years. He has an 

eighth grade education. He served in the 

army and was honorably discharged in 1962. 

After he was injured, he returned to work for 

his pre-injury employer. When that company 

dissolved he found two other jobs on his own 

initiative. His medical restrictions include 

no lifting over thirty-five pounds and no 

repetitive bending. 

 After he was laid off from Mid-Atlantic 

in December, 1995, he began looking for work. 

 He registered with the Virginia Employment 

Commission. He contacted the Department of 

Rehabilitation seeking vocational retraining 

assistance. He submitted a list of nineteen 

companies at which he applied for work and 

stated that he contacted seven to nine 

employers additionally. He also called 

companies listed in a book of trucking 

companies, using an 800 number. He looked in 

newspaper ads and spoke with friends. He 

received initial interest from Alliance, a 

tractor-trailer training school, but was 

rejected because of insufficient education 

after four visits to them. At Rappahannock 

Auto, business was too slow to hire him. 

Some companies request a 100% medical release 

before he could be hired. 

 The claimant was successful in finding 
 3 

employment on April 4, 1996, and he is 

currently employed as a driver for an 

automobile repossessor. Even after he 

obtained work, he continued to look for a 

better job. 

 In order to establish entitlement to benefits, a partially 

disabled employee must prove that he has made a reasonable effort 

to procure suitable work but has been unable to do so. See Great 

Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Bateman, 4 Va. App. 459, 464, 359 S.E.2d 

98, 101 (1987). "What constitutes a reasonable marketing effort 

depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case." The 

Greif Companies v. Sipe, 16 Va. App. 709, 715, 434 S.E.2d 314, 

318 (1993). We have discussed factors which the commission 

should consider in deciding whether a claimant has made 

reasonable good faith efforts to market his remaining capacity: 

 (1) the nature and extent of employee's 

disability; (2) the employee's training, age, 

experience, and education; (3) the nature and 

extent of employee's job search; (4) the 

employee's intent in conducting his job 

search; (5) the availability of jobs in the 

area suitable for the employee, considering 

his disability; and (6) any other matter 

affecting employee's capacity to find 

suitable employment. 

National Linen Serv. v. McGuinn, 8 Va. App. 267, 272, 380 S.E.2d 

31, 34 (1989) (footnotes omitted). 

 The commission's factual findings are supported by the 

record. Based upon these findings, which take into account the 

factors set forth in National Linen, we cannot find as a matter 

of law that the commission erred in concluding that claimant 

proved he made good faith reasonable efforts to market his 
 4 

residual capacity. 

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

 Affirmed.