COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

VIRGINIA LUCAS WRIGHT 

v. Record No. 2398-96-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

AMERISOURCE MARCH 18, 1997 

AND 

ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (George L. Townsend; Chandler, Franklin & 

O'Bryan, on brief), for appellant. 

 (Richard D. Lucas; Carter, Brown & Osborne, 

P.C., on brief), for appellees. 

 Virginia Lucas Wright (claimant) contends that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission (commission) erred in terminating her 

compensation benefits as of January 30, 1996 on the ground that 

she unjustifiably refused Amerisource's (employer) bona fide 

offer of selective employment. 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. 

 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). 

Findings of fact made by the commission will be upheld on appeal 

if supported by credible evidence. James v. Capitol Steel 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

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

 It is undisputed that in January 1996, claimant's physicians 

released her to work four hours per day, and that employer 

offered claimant a part-time job approved by her physicians. 

Claimant refused the job offer because the cost of commuting from 

Roanoke to Lynchburg for a four-hour per day, six-dollar per hour 

job would equal or exceed the income she would earn. The parties 

also agreed that employer offered the temporary job to claimant 

in an effort to get her back to full-duty. On May 20, 1996, 

employer offered claimant a modified full-duty job at her 

pre-injury rate of pay. 

 In granting employer's application, the commission made the 

following findings: 

 Although the Commission has held that an 

employee may be justified in refusing an 

offer of selective employment which is 

geographically remote or of minimal financial 

value, in this case the employer has offered 

the claimant the same job in the same 

location that she was performing before her 

injury. She argues that because she moved to 

Roanoke, and was planning to quit the job for 

that reason, she was justified in refusing 

the part-time job offer. However, the 

part-time job was simply a temporary effort 

to ease her back into full-time employment. 

Although the remuneration was minimal, we 

find that the employer was entitled to begin 

the process of the claimant's re-entry into 

the work force. 

 Credible evidence, including the medical records, the 

parties' stipulations, claimant's testimony, and the testimony of 

employer's human resources director, supports the commission's 
 3 

findings. The duties of the selective employment fell within 

claimant's physical restrictions. Employer offered claimant the 

same job, at the same rate of pay, and at the same location as 

before her injury. Claimant commuted from Roanoke to Lynchburg 

prior to her injury. Therefore, the commission did not err in 

finding that the length of the commute did not constitute a 

justification for claimant's refusal of the selective employment. 

The only difference between claimant's pre-injury job and the 

selective employment was a reduction in the number of hours 

worked to accommodate claimant's physical restrictions. 

Moreover, employer offered the part-time job to claimant in order 

to prepare her for full-time work, which it ultimately offered 

her on May 20, 1996. Under these circumstances, the commission 

did not err in concluding that claimant was not justified in 

refusing employer's bona fide offer of selective employment. 

 Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision. 

 Affirmed.