COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Coleman and Frank 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

MARTINSVILLE CITY SCHOOL BOARD 

 AND VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL GROUP 

 SELF-INSURANCE ASSOCIATION 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 2291-99-3 CHIEF JUDGE JOHANNA L. FITZPATRICK 

 MAY 2, 2000 

TIMOTHY ALLAN MYERS 

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

Frank K. Friedman (John P. Grove; Charles V. 

Mehler, III; Woods, Rogers & Hazlegrove, 

P.L.C., on brief), for appellants. 

Timothy Allan Myers, pro se. 

 Martinsville City School Board ("employer") contends the 

Workers' Compensation Commission ("commission") erred in 

refusing to order a change in Timothy Allan Myers' ("claimant") 

treating physician. Finding no error, we affirm the 

commission's decision. 

 "On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the claimant, who prevailed before the commission." 

Allen & Rocks, Inc. v. Briggs, 28 Va. App. 662, 672, 508 S.E.2d 

335, 340 (1998) (citations omitted). "Decisions of the 

commission as to questions of fact, if supported by credible 

 

 * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code 

§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
evidence, are conclusive and binding on this Court." Manassas 

Ice & Fuel Co. v. Farrar, 13 Va. App. 227, 229, 409 S.E.2d 824, 

826 (1991). 

 Viewed in the light most favorable to claimant, who 

prevailed before the commission, credible evidence supports the 

commission's finding that employer failed to offer sufficient 

justification for a change in claimant's treating physician. We 

have previously identified several grounds upon which a change 

in an employee's treating physician will be ordered: 

"inadequate treatment is being rendered; it 

appears that treatment is needed by a 

specialist in a particular field and is not 

being provided; no progress being made in 

improvement of the employee's health 

condition without any adequate explanation; 

conventional modalities of treatment are not 

being used; no plan of treatment for 

long-term disability cases; and failure to 

cooperate with discovery proceedings ordered 

by the Commission." 

Briggs, 28 Va. App. at 675, 508 S.E.2d at 341 (quoting Powers v. 

J.B. Constr. Co., 68 O.I.C. 208, 211 (1989)). "Additionally, 

when an employer seeks to change claimant's treating physician 

because the claimant has made little progress and no treatment 

plan has been derived, the employer must identify the 

alternative care that should be substituted and must demonstrate 

that the suggested care would be more appropriate and 

productive." Id. (citing Bennett v. Fairfax County Sch. Bd., 74 

O.W.C. 1, 4 (1995)). 

- 2 -
 In the instant case, the commission found that there were 

"fundamental conflicts" between the opinions of Dr. Murray 

Joiner and Dr. David Cifu, employer's two experts. While Dr. 

Joiner recommended "more aggressive evaluation and treatment," 

Dr. Cifu opined that "further evaluations and intensive 

interventions for [claimant's] Chronic Pain Syndrome would be 

inappropriate." Additionally, Dr. Joiner failed to explain how 

his recommended plan "would differ from the claimant's present 

treatment" and "the claimant has received essentially all of the 

treatment and therapy recommended by Dr. Cifu." In short, 

employer failed to identify a medical treatment program that 

would be "more appropriate and productive." Briggs, 28 Va. App. 

at 675, 508 S.E.2d at 341. Claimant's condition is "chronic," 

and the commission found his "lack of improvement to be 

understandable." Because credible evidence supports these 

findings, we affirm the commission's decision. 

 Affirmed.

- 3 -