COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Humphreys, Beales and Powell 

TIMOTHY WAYNE BRADLEY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 2623-08-3 PER CURIAM 

 MARCH 10, 2009 

SOUTHERN AIR, INC. AND 

 LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Gregory P. Cochran; Caskie & Frost, on brief), for appellant. 

 (John T. Cornett, Jr.; Daniel E. Lynch; Daniel E. Lynch & 

Associates, on brief), for appellees. 

 Timothy Wayne Bradley (claimant) appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation 

Commission denying his claim seeking to hold Southern Air, Inc. and its insurer responsible for 

the cost of medical treatment of his low back and left hip. 

 On appeal, claimant contends the commission erred in dismissing his claim because the 

medical evidence proved his low back and left hip injuries constituted compensable 

consequences of his original October 30, 1999 right knee injury. However, our review of the 

commission’s opinion shows that it did not render any decision on the questions raised by 

claimant in this appeal. Rather, the commission based its denial of claimant’s May 2, 2007 claim 

for benefits for medical treatment of his low back and left hip solely upon its findings that the 

claim was barred by the statute of limitations contained in Code § 65.2-601, as it was not filed 

within two years from the date of claimant’s compensable accident and that his May 2007 claim 

did not constitute an amendment to the initial April 26, 2000 claim for benefits. The commission 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

did not address the compensable consequences issues now raised by claimant on appeal, and 

claimant failed to file a motion for reconsideration or rehearing in order to request that it do so. 

Accordingly, we will not address whether the low back and left hip injuries constituted 

compensable consequences of claimant’s original injury for the first time on appeal. See Rule 

5A:18. “Although Rule 5A:18 allows exceptions for good cause or to meet the ends of justice, 

appellant does not argue that we should invoke these exceptions [and] [w]e will not consider, sua 

sponte, a ‘miscarriage of justice’ argument under Rule 5A:18.” Edwards v. Commonwealth, 41 

Va. App. 752, 761, 589 S.E.2d 444, 448 (2003) (en banc) (citation omitted). 

 Because claimant does not challenge the commission’s specific findings that his May 

2007 claim for medical treatment of his low back and left hip was barred by the statute of 

limitations contained in Code § 65.2-601, as it was not filed within two years from the date of his 

compensable accident, and that his May 2007 claim was not an amendment to the initial April 

26, 2000 claim for benefits, those findings are binding and conclusive upon us. Accordingly, we 

affirm the commission’s decision without addressing the merits of the questions raised by 

claimant. We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not 

aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.