Present: All the Justices 

PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY 

SERVICE AUTHORITY, ET AL. 

OPINION BY JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. 

v. Record No. 971519 September 18, 1998 

LORRAINE HARPER 

FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

 We consider whether an employee's false statement on an 

employment application, that she had not been convicted of a 

felony, bars her receipt of workers' compensation benefits. 

 Lorraine M. Harper pled guilty to the felonies of insurance 

fraud and criminal conspiracy in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

on June 5, 1992. On July 30, 1993, she completed an application 

for employment with the Prince William County Service Authority. 

The employment application contained the following question: "Have 

you ever been convicted of a law violation, including moving 

traffic violations but excluding offenses committed before your 

eighteenth birthday which were finally adjudicated in a Juvenile 

Court or under a Youth Offender Law? You may omit traffic 

violations for which you paid $30.00 or less." Harper responded, 

"no" when she answered this question. The employment application 

also contained the following certification: "I hereby certify that 

this application is a complete record and that all entries given 

are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I understand 

that any attempt to practice deception or fraud in this application 
is grounds for disqualification or dismissal." Harper concealed 

her felony convictions when she completed the employment 

application. 

 Harper, who was hired as a wastewater treatment plant operator 

trainee with the Prince William County Service Authority, sustained 

injuries to her left wrist and coccyx while performing her duties 

on June 14, 1994. Harper and the Authority executed agreements 

providing for the payment of disability benefits for certain time 

she missed from work. 

 In February 1995, Harper filed an application for benefits 

based upon a change in condition with the Workers' Compensation 

Commission (Commission), seeking disability benefits for various 

periods from January 1995 through July 1995. During the course of 

that proceeding, the Authority learned that Harper had failed to 

disclose her felony convictions. 

 At a hearing before a deputy commissioner, Sherry Boyce, 

personnel director for the Authority, testified that the Authority 

does not automatically disqualify employment applicants who have 

felony convictions, but that each applicant with a felony 

conviction is considered on "a case-by-case basis." Boyce 

testified that the Authority would not have hired Harper had she 

disclosed her felony convictions because of the nature and recent 

date of the convictions. 

2
 Harper resigned from her employment with the Authority before 

it became aware of her felony convictions. Boyce testified that 

had Harper been employed at the time the Authority learned of her 

misrepresentations, it would have terminated her employment. 

 The Authority asserted before the deputy commissioner that 

Harper is barred from receiving workers' compensation benefits 

because of her false representations. The deputy commissioner, 

rejecting the Authority's assertion, concluded that Harper's 

"felony conviction[s] would not have automatically resulted in the 

[Authority's] rejection of her employment application. The 

falsehood itself did not contribute to the nature of her injury, 

which would prevent benefits as in those cases where a claimant 

lied about her physical condition." The deputy commissioner 

entered an award in favor of Harper against the Authority. 

 The Authority appealed the deputy commissioner's determination 

to the Commission which also rejected the Authority's contention. 

The Authority appealed the Commission's award to the Court of 

Appeals, which affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that the 

evidence of record failed to demonstrate that "the 

misrepresentation, that Harper had not committed a crime, was 

causally related to Harper's injury." Prince William County Serv. 

Auth. v. Harper, 25 Va. App. 166, 170, 487 S.E.2d 246, 248 (1997). 

The Authority appeals. 

3
 Relying upon Marval Poultry Co. v. Johnson, 224 Va. 597, 299 

S.E.2d 343 (1983), the Authority argues that since Harper obtained 

employment through fraud or material misrepresentation, she is 

barred from receiving workers' compensation benefits because there 

is no valid contract of hire and she may not benefit from her 

fraudulent conduct. Continuing, the Authority asserts that a 

causal relationship exists between Harper's misrepresentation and 

her work-related injury because had she revealed her felony 

convictions, she would not have been hired and the employeremployee relationship would not have existed. We find no merit in 

the Authority's contentions. 

 In Falls Church Constr. Co. v. Laidler, 254 Va. 474, 477-78, 

493 S.E.2d 521, 523 (1997), we stated the following principles 

which are pertinent here: 

 "An employee's false representation in an employment 

application will bar a later claim for workers' 

compensation benefits if the employer proves that 1) the 

employee intentionally made a material false 

representation; 2) the employer relied on that 

misrepresentation; 3) the employer's reliance resulted in 

the consequent injury; and 4) there is a causal 

relationship between the injury in question and the 

misrepresentation." 

 Applying these principles, we hold that Harper is not barred 

from receiving workers' compensation benefits because the Authority 

failed to adduce evidence which established a causal relationship 

between her work-related injury and her misrepresentation of her 

criminal record. Boyce's testimony that the Authority would not 

4
have hired Harper had it been aware of her felony convictions is 

not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a causal 

relationship between Harper's work-related injury and her 

misrepresentation. 

 We reject the Authority's contention that our decision in 

Marval bars Harper's receipt of workers' compensation benefits. In 

Marval, we considered whether an employee was entitled to workers' 

compensation benefits after the employee was discharged by his 

employer for dishonesty. As we recently explained, "[o]ur holding 

in Marval did not address issues of reliance or causation. Rather, 

we held only that the justified termination of an employee for 

dishonesty barred his later claim for benefits under a change in 

condition application." Laidler, 254 Va. at 478, 493 S.E.2d at 

523. Hence, Marval is inapposite to this case in which the issue 

of causation is dispositive. 

 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Court of 

Appeals properly affirmed the Commission's decision. See Code 

§ 65.2-706. Therefore, we will affirm the judgment of the Court of 

Appeals. 

Affirmed. 

5