COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

JOHNNY A. MURRAY 

v. Record No. 1090-95-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

WESTMORELAND COAL COMPANY OCTOBER 3, 1995 

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Donald E. Earls, on briefs), for appellant. 

 (Michael F. Blair; Penn, Stuart, Eskridge & Jones, 

on brief), for appellee. 

 Johnny A. Murray ("claimant") contends that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission erred in finding that Westmoreland Coal 

Company ("employer") was not responsible for the cost of a 

Craftmatic Adjustable Bed ("the bed") prescribed by Dr. Michael 

Ford, the treating physician, because claimant failed to prove 

that the bed was reasonable and medically necessary. Claimant 

also argues that the commission erred in considering Dr. Ford's 

April 22, 1993 progress note and in not considering his October 

6, 1994 letter as after-discovered evidence. 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. 

 On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the prevailing party below. R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. 
 2 

Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). 

Unless we can say as a matter of law that claimant met his burden 

of proving that employer was responsible for the cost of the bed, 

the commission's findings are binding and conclusive upon us. 

Tomko v. Michael's Plastering Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 

833, 835 (1970). 

 Code § 65.2-603 (formerly Code § 65.1-88) provides: "As long 

as necessary after an accident the employer shall furnish or 

cause to be furnished, free of charge to the injured employee, a 

physician . . . and such other necessary medical attention." 

(Emphasis added.) 

 The commission denied claimant's request that employer be 

held responsible for the cost of the bed. The commission found 

that (a) Dr. Ford could not render an opinion as to the medical 

necessity of the bed because he was not familiar with the bed, 

(b) Dr. Ford acknowledged that regular physical therapy would 

provide superior care over the bed, (c) Dr. Ford failed to opine 

that claimant required round-the-clock physical therapy, and (d) 

no evidence established that a two-person bed (as opposed to a 

one-person model) was reasonable and necessary. 

 Dr. Ford's medical records, letters, and deposition 

testimony, which were all considered by the commission, support 

its findings.1 Based upon the lack of evidence that the bed was 

 

 1Because it appears from the record that the commission 

considered all of the medical evidence before it, including Dr. 

Ford's April 22, 1993 progress note and his October 6, 1994 

letter, we do not find it necessary to address claimant's 
 3 

reasonable and medically necessary, we cannot say as a matter of 

law that the commission erred in finding that employer was not 

responsible for the cost of the bed. Accordingly, we affirm the 

commission's decision. 

 Affirmed.

 

argument concerning these medical reports.