COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Bumgardner and Senior Judge Hodges 

Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia 

JERRY GILBERT DODSON 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 2516-00-1 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III 

 APRIL 17, 2001 

NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 Matthew W. Smith (Richard B. Donaldson, Jr.; 

Jones, Blechman, Woltz & Kelly, P.C., on 

brief), for appellant. 

 Benjamin M. Mason (Mason, Cowardin & Mason, 

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

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 

 This is the second appeal of this case. Jerry G. Dodson 

was injured in 1993 and received permanent partial disability 

benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation 

Act. He also received partial disability benefits under the 

Workers' Compensation Act. Consequently, the employer paid 

$22,500.56 more under the federal act than the state act 

required. The commission allowed a credit for the overpayment, 

which the employer asserted by delaying payment of state 

benefits until the credit was exhausted. The employer made no 

payments until May 2, 1998, when its 56.5 weeks of credit 

expired. 
The employee sought imposition of a penalty for violating 

Code § 65.2-524.1 The commission refused to impose a penalty, 

and the employee appealed. In an unpublished opinion, Dodson v. 

Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., Record No. 0278-99-1 

(Va. Ct. App. August 10, 1999), we reversed the commission. The 

employer improperly took its credit by not making payments 

within two weeks of their becoming due. We remanded for 

determination of the penalty provided by Code § 65.2-524. 

On remand, the commission assessed the 20% penalty as 

$4,505.80. The employee then requested the commission to issue 

a show cause against the employer asserting it should pay 

compensation for the period encompassed by the penalty. He 

requested additional penalties for that failure to pay 

compensation. The commission denied the request for further 

compensation and ruled the employee was only entitled to the 

 1

 Code § 65.2-524. Failure to pay compensation within two

weeks after it becomes due. -- If any payment is not paid within 

two weeks after it becomes due, there shall be added to such 

unpaid compensation an amount equal to twenty percent thereof, 

unless the Commission finds that any required payment has been 

made as promptly as practicable and (i) there is good cause 

outside the control of the employer for the delay or (ii) in the 

case of a self-insured employer, the employer has issued the 

required payment to the employee as a part of the next regular 

payroll after the payment becomes due. No such penalty shall be 

added, however, to any payment made within two weeks after the 

expiration of (i) the period in which Commission review may be 

requested pursuant to § 65.2-705 or (ii) the period in which a 

notice of appeal may be filed pursuant to § 65.2-706. No 

penalty shall be assessed against the Commonwealth when the 

Commonwealth has issued a regular payroll check to the employee 

in lieu of compensation covering the period of disability. 

- 2 -
penalty on remand. The employee brought this appeal. He 

contends an award of benefits was implicit in the order to pay 

the penalty and failure to pay compensation caused the employer 

to incur further penalties. 

The issue before this Court on the first appeal was whether 

"the commission erred in finding that Newport News Shipbuilding 

and Dry Dock Company (employer) properly took credit for 

payments it made under the Longshore and Harborworkers' 

Compensation Act (LHWCA) against its liability under the 

Virginia Workers' Compensation Act (Act)." Id. at 1. The Court 

agreed with the employee's assertion that the commission erred 

and reversed its decision. "For these reasons, we hold that the 

commission erred in holding that the employer properly applied 

its credit pursuant to Code § 65.2-520." Id. at 7. The Court 

remanded "for determination of the penalty under Code 

§ 65.2-524." Id.

The issue on the first appeal dealt with the employee's 

entitlement to a penalty. The decision addressed only that 

issue, and nothing in the opinion or the remand suggests it 

authorized any other claim for compensation. The commission 

assessed the penalty as directed, and the employer paid it. The 

commission correctly interpreted the remand in its refusal to 

grant additional relief. 

Affirmed. 

- 3 -