COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis 

GREAT COASTAL EXPRESS, INC. 

AND 

PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY 

v. Record No. 0108-96-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

JANICE RUCKER JUNE 11, 1996 

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Patricia C. Arrighi, on brief), for 

appellants. 

 (Gary L. Lumsden; Lumsden & Overstreet, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Great Coastal Express, Inc. and its insurer (hereinafter 

collectively referred to as "employer") contend that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission erred in finding that Janice Rucker 

("claimant") (1) proved she sustained a change in condition as of 

December 1, 1994; and (2) adequately marketed her residual 

capacity beginning December 1, 1994. 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). Factual 

findings made by the commission are binding on appeal if 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

supported by credible evidence. James v. Capitol Steel Constr. 

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

 I. 

 On March 31, 1994, claimant, who worked for employer as a 

tractor trailer driver, sustained multiple injuries as a result 

of her involvement in a motor vehicle accident. Employer 

stipulated to the compensability of claimant's accident. In a 

December 1, 1994 opinion, the commission awarded claimant 

benefits until July 28, 1994, the date Dr. Darrell F. Powledge 

released claimant to return to work. On December 9, 1994, 

claimant filed a change in condition application alleging 

recurrent incapacity beginning December 1, 1994. 

 The commission awarded claimant temporary total disability 

benefits from December 1, 1994 through January 30, 1995, 

temporary partial disability benefits from January 31, 1995 

through February 17, 1995, and temporary total disability 

benefits beginning February 18, 1995 and continuing. The 

commission found that the uncontradicted medical evidence 

provided by Dr. William F. Swann proved that claimant could not 

perform her pre-injury work as of December 1, 1994. 

 The commission's finding is supported by evidence that Dr. 

Swann first prescribed Lorcet for claimant on October 3, 1994. 

Dr. Swann opined that claimant should refrain from driving 

tractor trailers as of December 1, 1994 due to medication 

prescribed for her March 31, 1994 injury. Claimant testified 
 3 

that she had been taking Lorcet since she came under Dr. Swann's 

care, and that she had not previously taken the drug under Dr. 

Powledge's care. Dr. Swann was the only physician to treat 

claimant since November 1994. Dr. Swann's opinion and claimant's 

testimony constitute credible evidence to support the 

commission's decision that claimant proved a change in condition 

as of December 1, 1994 related to her compensable March 31, 1994 

injury by accident. 

 II. 

 Based upon claimant's testimony concerning her efforts, 

beginning December 1, 1994, to find employment with approximately 

fifty employers, the commission ruled that she proved she 

marketed her residual work capacity. Claimant testified that she 

filed an application with all of the employers contacted and had 

approximately ten interviews. Claimant ultimately secured work 

with Pinkerton Security around January 31, 1995. Claimant worked 

for Pinkerton until February 17, 1995, when she was unable to 

continue due to the side effects of Lorcet. At the time of the 

hearing, claimant stated that she had secured a home sales job 

with Mary Kay Cosmetics, but had not yet started working. No 

evidence contradicted claimant's testimony concerning her 

marketing efforts. Her testimony constitutes credible evidence 

to support the commission's finding that she adequately marketed 

her residual capacity. Accordingly, we will not disturb this 

finding on appeal. 
 4 

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

 Affirmed.