COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Coleman and Fitzpatrick 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

ARA SERVICES AND RELIANCE 

 INSURANCE COMPANY 

v. Record No. 0412-95-3 OPINION BY 

 JUDGE JOHANNA L. FITZPATRICK 

SHERRY L. SWIFT APRIL 2, 1996 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 

 John C. Johnson (Melissa Warner Scoggins; 

Gentry, Locke, Rakes & Moore, on brief), for 

appellants. 

 Rhonda L. Overstreet (Gary L. Lumsden, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 In this workers' compensation case, ARA Services and its 

insurer, Reliance Insurance Company (collectively referred to as 

employer), appeal the commission's decision awarding benefits to 

Sherry L. Swift (claimant). Employer argues that the commission 

erred in: (1) finding that claimant reasonably and adequately 

marketed her residual work capacity by accepting offered parttime employment with employer, and (2) requiring employer to 

provide claimant with a home exercise station. For the reasons 

that follow, we affirm the commission's decision. 

 Claimant injured her left arm and shoulder on December 20, 

1991, while working for employer as a route driver. Her job 

involved lifting items weighing up to seventy-five pounds. 

Employer accepted the claim as compensable and paid benefits from 

January 29, 1992 to March 30, 1992. 
 2 

 Claimant returned to her pre-injury employment on March 30, 

1992, with no restrictions. After a week or two, claimant was 

unable to continue. Employer then reassigned claimant to lightduty work as a vending machine attendant, a position that 

involved less lifting. In her pre-injury employment, claimant 

worked forty hours per week and earned $6.25 per hour. In the 

light-duty position, claimant worked twenty-five hours per week 

and earned $6.80 per hour. 

 In a December 10, 1992 report, Dr. Andrew J. Cepulo, 

claimant's treating physician, stated: "The patient is to obtain 

exercise equipment for home use. We reviewed some specific 

muscles that need to be strengthened, and stretched . . . ." On 

February 4, 1993, Dr. Cepulo again emphasized the importance of 

claimant "increasing [the] frequency of stretching to deal with 

acute exacerbations" of her work-related injury. Dr. Cepulo also 

placed lifting restrictions on her work ability but did not 

restrict her hours. In a November 8, 1993 report, Dr. Cepulo 

continued the lifting restrictions, occasional lifting of over 

fifty pounds and frequent lifting of thirty to forty pounds, but 

again did not limit claimant's hours. Dr. Cepulo prescribed a 

home exercise station "to allow upper [and] lower extremity home 

strengthening program to reduce pain," and approved additional 

treatment from Dr. Laura Liles, an osteopathic physician. Dr. 

Liles prescribed a treadmill for claimant "to be able to walk 

daily, regardless of weather, to work on chronic cervical 
 3 

strain." Claimant purchased the home exercise station for 

$208.99 and placed it in her home. 

 Claimant filed an application for change in condition by 

letter on December 16, 1993, January 31, 1994, and June 7, 1994. 

 Claimant requested temporary partial disability benefits 

beginning September 18, 1993; reimbursement for the home exercise 

station prescribed by Dr. Cepulo; and provision of a treadmill as 

prescribed by Dr. Liles. In awarding claimant benefits, the 

commission found that: (1) claimant adequately marketed her 

residual work capacity by accepting part-time employment offered 

by employer because she would have been subject to termination if 

she had refused the light-duty position; and (2) the home 

exercise station was reasonable and necessary for claimant's 

recovery. Her request for the treadmill was denied. 

MARKETING OF RESIDUAL WORK CAPACITY

 Employer argues that claimant did not reasonably and 

adequately market her remaining residual capacity because she 

accepted part-time light-duty employment offered by employer and 

failed to obtain full-time employment elsewhere. 

 On appeal, this Court reviews "the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the prevailing party." R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. 

v. Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). 

"Factual findings of the . . . [c]ommission will be upheld on 

appeal if supported by credible evidence." James v. Capitol 

Steel Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 488 
 4 

(1989). 

 A partially disabled employee "must make a reasonable effort 

to market his remaining capacity to work in order to continue 

receiving workers' compensation benefits." Virginia Wayside 

Furn., Inc. v. Burnette, 17 Va. App. 74, 78, 435 S.E.2d 156, 159 

(1993). "What constitutes a reasonable marketing effort depends 

upon the facts and circumstances of each case." Greif Companies 

(GENESCO) v. Sipe, 16 Va. App. 709, 715, 434 S.E.2d 314, 318 

(1993). In National Linen Service v. McGuinn, 8 Va. App. 267, 

380 S.E.2d 31 (1989), we identified six factors that the 

commission must consider in determining whether an employee has 

reasonably and adequately marketed his or her remaining work 

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 [her] job 

search; (5) the availability of jobs in the 

area suitable for the employee, considering 

[her] disability; and (6) any other matter 

affecting employee's capacity to find 

suitable employment. 

Id. at 272, 380 S.E.2d at 34 (footnotes omitted). 

 The commission must also consider "whether the employee 

cooperated with the employer and if the employer availed itself 

of its opportunity to assist the claimant in obtaining 

employment." Id. at 272 n.5, 380 S.E.2d at 34 n.5. If an 

injured employee unjustifiably refuses selective employment 

offered by the employer, he or she is "no longer entitled to 
 5 

receive disability compensation during the continuance of the 

refusal." Virginia Wayside Furn., 17 Va. App. at 78, 435 S.E.2d 

at 159; Code § 65.2-510(A).1 

 In the instant case, claimant promptly returned to her preinjury employment but was physically unable to continue her 

earlier duties. Employer then offered claimant a light-duty 

position and reassigned her. The commission expressly found 

that, "[i]f the claimant had refused this job, she would have 

been subject to a termination of benefits for refusing suitable 

employment." We agree and hold that, under the circumstances in 

this case, claimant acted reasonably in accepting the part-time 

light-duty employment offered by her pre-injury employer and 

adequately marketed her residual work capacity. 

 Employer mistakenly relies on this Court's holding in 

National Linen that mere employment is "insufficient proof of 

making a reasonable effort to market one's remaining work 

capacity." See 8 Va. App. at 268, 380 S.E.2d at 32. When the 

claimant in National Linen was able to return to work, he did not 

seek employment with his pre-injury employer, and his former 

 

 1Code § 65.2-510(A) provides as follows: 

 If an injured employee refuses employment 

procured for him suitable to his capacity, he 

shall only be entitled to the benefits 

provided for in §§ 65.2-503 and 65.2-603, 

excluding vocational rehabilitation services 

provided for in subdivision A 3 of § 

65.2-603, during the continuance of such 

refusal, unless in the opinion of the 

Commission such refusal was justified. 
 6 

employer did not offer him employment. The claimant accepted 

employment with his father, not his pre-injury employer, and made 

no efforts to seek employment elsewhere. Id. at 269, 380 S.E.2d 

at 32. 

 In the instant case, claimant returned to her pre-injury 

employment. When she was unable to perform the job because of 

the lifting involved, employer offered her light-duty employment. 

 Claimant accepted in good faith the light-duty position offered 

by her pre-injury employer, and no evidence in the record shows 

that she was told to seek additional employment. Under Code 

§ 65.2-510(A), if claimant had refused the position, her right to 

benefits could have been terminated. Under these circumstances, 

credible evidence supports the commission's determination that 

claimant reasonably and adequately marketed her residual work 

capacity. 

MEDICALLY NECESSARY HOME APPLIANCE

 Employer next argues that the home exercise station was not 

reasonable and necessary for claimant's recovery. Employer 

denies responsibility for claimant's total body conditioning when 

her work-related injury was a strained left arm. 

 Code § 65.2-603(A)(1) provides in pertinent part as follows: 

 [U]pon determination by the treating 

physician and the Commission that the same is 

medically necessary, the Commission may 

require that the employer furnish and 

maintain wheelchairs, bedside lifts, 

adjustable beds, and modification of the 

employee's principal home consisting of 

ramps, handrails, or any appliances 

prescribed by the treating physician and 
 7 

doorway alterations. 

(Emphasis added). 

 In this case, the commission found that the home exercise 

station was reasonable and necessary. Dr. Cepulo, claimant's 

treating physician, prescribed the exercise equipment "to allow 

upper [and] lower extremity home strengthening program to reduce 

[claimant's] pain" associated with her work-related injury. Dr. 

Cepulo also emphasized the importance of claimant "increasing 

[the] frequency of stretching to deal with acute exacerbations" 

of her injury. Code § 65.2-603(A)(1) does not limit "appliances 

prescribed by the treating physician" to those that constitute 

structural modifications of a claimant's home and may include 

medically necessary exercise equipment. Because credible 

evidence in the record shows that the exercise equipment was 

"medically necessary" for treatment of claimant's work-related 

injury, the commission did not err in ordering employer to 

reimburse claimant. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the commission is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.