Present: All the Justices 

JEFFREY L. WILLIAMS 

v. Record No. 022213 OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY 

 October 31, 2003 

GLOUCESTER (COUNTY OF) SHERIFF'S 

DEPARTMENT, ET AL. 

FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

 The issue in this appeal is whether the contemporaneous 

objection rule prohibits a party from appealing a decision of 

the Workers' Compensation Commission rendered on grounds 

neither raised nor previously addressed in the proceedings, if 

an objection to that decision was not made the subject of a 

motion for rehearing or reconsideration before the Commission. 

 Jeffrey L. Williams sought workers' compensation benefits 

for heart disease he claimed he developed while employed by 

the Gloucester County Sheriff's Department. A deputy 

commissioner denied his claim, and Williams sought review of 

this decision by the full Commission. The Commission affirmed 

the decision of the deputy commissioner, but on different 

grounds. The Commission determined that Williams' last 

"injurious exposure" occurred while he was employed by the 

Virginia Peninsula Regional Jail Authority, not the Gloucester 

County Sheriff's Department, and therefore, that Williams was 

not entitled to benefits from the Sheriff's Department. 
 Williams appealed the Commission's decision to the Court 

of Appeals, asserting that the Commission erred in denying 

benefits based on its conclusions regarding Williams' last 

injurious exposure. The Court of Appeals in an unpublished 

memorandum per curiam opinion refused to consider Williams' 

appeal, holding that Williams failed to preserve the issue for 

appeal because he did not file a motion for reconsideration 

raising this issue before the Commission. This failure, 

according to the Court of Appeals, deprived the Commission of 

the opportunity to correct the alleged error and thus violated 

the principles associated with the contemporaneous objection 

rule, Rule 5A:18. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed 

the Commission's decision. Jeffrey L. Williams v. Gloucester 

(County of) Sheriff's Department and Virginia Municipal Group 

Self-Insurance Association, No. 0905-02-4 (August 27, 2002) 

(memorandum per curiam). 

 In this appeal, Williams argues that because the basis 

for the Commission's decision was not raised, litigated, or in 

any way considered as an issue in the case prior to the 

issuance of the Commission's decision, because there is no 

formal procedure for filing a motion for reconsideration 

before the Commission, and because such motion does not stay 

the time for filing an appeal, the Court of Appeals should not 

2
have applied Rule 5A:18 to bar his appeal. We disagree with 

Williams. 

 The contemporaneous objection rule, embodied in Rule 

5A:18 in the Court of Appeals and Rule 5:25 in this Court, is 

based on the principle that a litigant has the responsibility 

to afford a court the opportunity to consider and correct a 

perceived error before such error is brought to the appellate 

court for review. Reid v. Baumgardner, 217 Va. 769, 773, 232 

S.E.2d 778, 781 (1977). The contemporaneous objection rules 

in each court exist "to protect the trial court from appeals 

based upon undisclosed grounds, to prevent the setting of 

traps on appeal, to enable the trial judge to rule 

intelligently, and to avoid unnecessary reversals and 

mistrials." Reid v. Boyle, 259 Va. 356, 372, 527 S.E.2d 137, 

146 (2000) (quoting Fisher v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 403, 414, 

374 S.E.2d 46, 52 (1988)). These rules are not limited to 

evidentiary rulings and require objection while the tribunal 

is in a position to correct a claimed error. Id.; Reid v. 

Baumgardner, 217 Va. at 774, 232 S.E.2d at 781. 

 Williams is correct when he states that the Rules of the 

Commission do not contain specific procedures for a motion for 

rehearing or motion to reconsider; nevertheless such motions 

are not uncommon, and the Commission may vacate the original 

decision pending consideration of such a motion. Hamilton v. 

3
Basic Construction Company, 77 O.I.C. 245, 247 (1998). Even 

if the original decision is not vacated, filing a motion for 

reconsideration does not impair a litigant's right to pursue a 

timely appeal. 

Finally, the requirement that a litigant file a motion 

for rehearing or reconsideration to preserve an issue for 

appeal under these circumstances is not a new requirement. 

The Court of Appeals has consistently held that the failure to 

file such motions under these circumstances bars raising the 

issue on appeal. Henrico County Public Utilities v. Taylor, 

34 Va. App. 233, 241-42 n.4, 540 S.E.2d 501, 506 n.4 (2001); 

Overhead Door Co. of Norfolk v. Lewis, 29 Va. App. 52, 62, 509 

S.E.2d 535, 539-40 (1999). 

For these reasons, we conclude that the Court of Appeals 

did not err in applying Rule 5A:18 in this case and holding 

that Williams failed to preserve the issues he sought to raise 

in his appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the 

Court of Appeals. 

Affirmed.

4