COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

MONTCLAIR COUNTRY CLUB 

AND 

ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

v. Record No. 2986-96-4 APRIL 29, 1997 

LAURA JAHNKE 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Joseph C. Veith, III; Montedonico, Hamilton & 

Altman, on brief), for appellants. 

 (Michael E. Canode; Bond, Conte & Norman, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Montclair Country Club and its insurer (hereinafter 

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

Compensation Commission (commission) erred in awarding temporary 

total disability benefits to Laura Jahnke (claimant) and in 

finding that she did not bear the burden of proving she made a 

good faith effort to market her residual work capacity after 

August 18, 1995. 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). 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

Factual findings made by the commission 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 (1989). 

 On August 14, 1995, claimant's counsel posed written 

questions to Dr. Abdorasool Janati, claimant's treating 

neurosurgeon. Counsel asked Dr. Janati whether claimant was 

presently disabled as a result of her March 21, 1991 compensable 

injury by accident, and if so, whether that disability was total 

or partial. Counsel also requested that Dr. Janati set forth 

claimant's limitations if she was only partially disabled. On 

August 18, 1995, Dr. Janati responded to these questions. Dr. 

Janati stated that claimant had sustained injuries to her neck 

and right upper extremity as a result of a work-related accident 

on March 12, 1991. Dr. Janati opined that claimant continued to 

suffer from symptoms of reflex sympathetic dystrophy of the right 

upper extremity possibly associated with thoracic outlet syndrome 

secondary to the work accident. Dr. Janati further opined that 

claimant's condition would require surgery, and that she would 

remain totally disabled pending surgical intervention. 

 On March 6, 1996, claimant's counsel sent a similar letter 

to Dr. Janati. On April 3, 1996, Dr. Janati responded, stating 

that claimant's condition remained unchanged, and that she 

continued to be totally disabled. 

 Claimant testified that she did not believe she had ever 

been released to return to work since the 1991 accident. She 
 3 

stated that she was incapable of working. Yet, beginning in 

September 1995, claimant made efforts to market her residual 

capacity. Claimant admitted that she was aware that on August 

31, 1995, Dr. Janati had advised her not to lift more than 

twenty-five pounds and to avoid pushing, pulling, and repeated 

bending.1

 

 Based upon this record, the commission held that claimant 

proved that she had been totally disabled from work since August 

18, 1995. Dr. Janati's uncontradicted opinions and claimant's 

testimony provide credible evidence to support the commission's 

decision. 

 In its role as fact finder, the commission was entitled to 

weigh the medical evidence, and to infer that Dr. Janati's August 

31, 1995 cautionary instructions to claimant regarding her daily 

activities did not constitute work restrictions or a release to 

gainful employment. "Where reasonable inferences may be drawn 

from the evidence in support of the commission's factual 

findings, they will not be disturbed by this Court on appeal." 

Hawks v. Henrico County Sch. Bd., 7 Va. App. 398, 404, 374 S.E.2d 

695, 698 (1988). Dr. Janati's August 18, 1995 and April 3, 1996 

responses to counsel's clear and unambiguous questions proved 

that Dr. Janati did not believe that claimant was only partially 

 

 1In his August 31, 1995 office notes, Dr. Janati wrote as 

follows: "I will see the patient back in follow-up in one month. 

 In the meantime I have cautioned the patient against heavy 

lifting (25 lbs. or more), pulling, pushing, and repeated 

bending." 
 4 

disabled. Rather, he made it clear in both instances that 

claimant remained totally disabled due to injuries causally 

related to the March 21, 1991 compensable injury by accident. If 

Dr. Janati believed that claimant was only partially disabled and 

that she could work with specific restrictions, he had every 

opportunity to provide such an opinion. Yet, he chose not to do 

so. 

 Because credible evidence supports the commission's finding 

that claimant remained totally disabled after August 18, 1995, we 

find that the commission did not err in not requiring claimant to 

prove that she made a good faith effort to market her residual 

work capacity. 

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

 Affirmed.