COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Fitzpatrick 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

CHARLES A. FINCHUM 

v. Record No. 2985-95-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 JUDGE JOHANNA L. FITZPATRICK 

SEARS ROEBUCK & COMPANY AND MAY 28, 1996 

 LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 Charles A. Finchum, pro se. 

 Glenn S. Phelps (R. Ferrell Newman; Thompson, 

Smithers, Newman & Wade, on brief), for 

appellees. 

 In this workers' compensation appeal, Charles A. Finchum 

(claimant) argues that the commission erred in finding that he 

was not entitled to temporary total disability benefits for the 

period claimed. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the 

commission. 

 On May 21, 1994, claimant, a loss prevention manager, 

sustained a compensable injury to his left shoulder while working 

for Sears Roebuck & Company (employer). In a July 4, 1994 

report, claimant's treating physician, Dr. Steven H. Jones, 

indicated that claimant suffered no disability as a result of his 

industrial accident. Claimant continued to work in his preinjury employment until September 3, 1994. On that date, he 

resigned as part of a settlement of an unrelated civil suit 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

between himself and employer. On January 27, 1995, Dr. Jones 

recommended an arthroscopic decompression of claimant's left 

shoulder. At that time, employer voluntarily began paying 

claimant temporary total disability benefits. 

 Claimant sought temporary total disability benefits 

beginning September 3, 1994, and continuing. In a November 15, 

1995 opinion, the commission determined that claimant was not 

entitled to benefits from September 3, 1994 to January 26, 1995 

because "claimant presented no testimony that he could not 

medically perform his regular job as a loss prevention supervisor 

during the period claimed." 

 On appeal, claimant argues that the commission erred in 

denying him benefits from September 3, 1994 to January 26, 1995. 

 He asserts that, when he returned to his pre-injury employment, 

he worked in a light-duty capacity. 

 "[W]e review the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

prevailing party." R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. Mullins, 10 Va. 

App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). "Factual findings of 

the . . . [c]ommission 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). 

 In the instant case, credible evidence supports the 

commission's finding that claimant failed to establish that his 

medical condition caused his unemployment. The record indicates 

that claimant returned to his pre-injury employment after his 
 3 

industrial accident. No evidence shows that claimant was unable 

to perform all of the duties required of a loss prevention 

manager, or that his duties were altered or restricted to 

accommodate any disability. Additionally, claimant admitted that 

he left his employment on September 3, 1994, as part of the 

settlement of the unrelated lawsuit, not because of his 

work-related injury. 

 Claimant also requests that we remand his claim to the 

commission for the taking of additional evidence. Rule 3.3 of 

the Rules of the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission 

provides that "[a] petition to reopen or receive after-discovered 

evidence may be considered only upon request for review" before 

the commission. Thus, remand is an inappropriate remedy in this 

case. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the commission is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.