COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Koontz, Bray and Senior Judge Hodges 

PANAGIOTIS G. HARAMIS 

v. Record No. 2489-94-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

G.T. PAINTING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. MAY 16, 1995 

AND 

PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' 

COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (John D. Konstantinou, on brief), for appellant. 

 (Lisa Frisina Clement, on brief), for appellees. 

 Panagiotis G. Haramis contends that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission erred in finding that G.T. Painting & 

Construction Company, Inc. and its insurer (hereinafter 

collectively referred to as "employer") were not responsible for 

the cost of medical expenses incurred by the claimant for 

treatment from unauthorized physician Dr. Lawrence M. Shall and 

for treatment rendered to the claimant upon referrals from Dr. 

Shall. 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. 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

 The claimant conceded that Dr. Shall was an unauthorized 

physician, and that, in order for the employer to be held 

responsible for the cost of Dr. Shall's treatment or treatment 

rendered upon Dr. Shall's referrals, the claimant was required to 

show that the "other good reasons" exception contained in Code 

§ 65.2-603(C) applied to his case. The commission notified the 

claimant that it had selected his application for an "on-therecord" determination.1

 The notice instructed the claimant that 

if he believed that an evidentiary hearing was necessary, he 

should request such a hearing within ten days. If, as the 

claimant now contends, there were substantial factual issues in 

dispute, he had the right to request an evidentiary hearing. 

However, the claimant did not exercise this right, but rather 

acquiesced to having his application decided through the on-therecord procedure. Therefore, we will not consider his argument 

on appeal that the commission erred in utilizing its on-therecord procedure to rule on his application. 

 "Without a referral from an authorized treating physician, 

Code § 65.2-603(C) provides for treatment by an unauthorized 

physician in an 'emergency' or 'for other good reason.'" 

Shenandoah Products, Inc. v. Whitlock, 15 Va. App. 207, 212, 421 

S.E.2d 483, 485 (1992). 

 [I]f the employee, without authorization but 

 

 1This Court has held that the commission's on-the-record 

procedure meets constitutional requirements of due process. See

Williams v. Virginia Elec. & Power Co., 18 Va. App. 569, 578, 445 

S.E.2d 693, 699 (1994). 
 3 

in good faith, obtains medical treatment 

different from that provided by the employer, 

and it is determined that the treatment 

provided by the employer was inadequate 

treatment for the employee's condition and 

the unauthorized treatment received by the 

claimant was medically reasonable and 

necessary treatment, the employer should be 

responsible, notwithstanding the lack of 

prior approval by the employer. 

Id. at 212, 421 S.E 2d at 486. The claimant did not present 

evidence to prove that he sought unauthorized treatment in good 

faith, that the treating physician, Dr. David Tornberg, rendered 

inadequate treatment, or that the unauthorized treatment received 

by the claimant was medically reasonable and necessary. 

Therefore, we cannot say as a matter of law that the commission 

erred in failing to apply the "other good reasons" exception 

contained in Code § 65.2-603(C), or in concluding that the 

employer was not responsible for the cost of the unauthorized 

treatment. "The mere fact that the unauthorized treatment is an 

acceptable method of treating the condition does not mean that 

the treatment should be paid for by the employer." Shenandoah 

Products, 15 Va. App. at 213, 421 S.E.2d at 486. 

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

 Affirmed.