COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Bumgardner 

MEADOW GREEN MINUTE MARKET, INC. 

AND 

VIRGINIA FARM BUREAU FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0098-98-3 PER CURIAM 

 MAY 26, 1998 

 REBECCA B. BOWLES 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Cathie W. Howard; Pierce & Howard, on 

brief), for appellants. 

 (Rhonda L. Overstreet; Lumsden, Overstreet & 

Hansen, on brief), for appellee. 

 Meadow Green Minute Market, Inc. and its insurer 

(hereinafter referred to as "employer") contend that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission ("commission") erred in granting the 

application of Rebecca B. Bowles ("claimant") requesting that 

employer provide her with a new panel of physicians. 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. See Rule 5A:27. 

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

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

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

Factual findings made by the commission will be upheld on appeal 

if supported by credible evidence. See James v. Capitol Steel 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1989). 

 In granting claimant's application, the commission found as 

follows: 

 In this case, the treating neurosurgeon has 

declined to make a referral to a physician 

who might address the claimant's ongoing pain 

complaints. Dr. [Edgar N.] Weaver[, Jr.] has 

instead determined that the claimant needs no 

further treatment despite the pain and 

presence of significant scar tissue. 

Although the claimant may not have need of 

further neurosurgical intervention, we find 

that Dr. [John] Wilson's suggestion of a pain 

clinic is a reasonable approach which Dr. 

Weaver evidently finds unnecessary. In view 

of the fact that Dr. Weaver has no plan of 

treatment or referral for the claimant's 

post-operative pain complaints, we find that 

she is entitled to a new panel of physicians. 

 Whether a treating physician has released or abandoned his 

patient generally is determined by the express intent of the 

physician. In some cases, the total circumstances must be 

analyzed in order to determine whether discharge, release, or 

abandonment of the patient was intended. This determination is a 

factual one which must be proved by clear and convincing 

evidence. See Jensen Press v. Ale, 1 Va. App. 153, 157, 336 

S.E.2d 522, 524 (1985). 

 Claimant's testimony and the medical records provide clear, 

convincing and credible evidence to support the commission's 

findings that Dr. Weaver refused to provide further treatment to 

claimant or to refer her to another physician although she 

continued to complain of post-operative pain. Where, as here, 

the commission's factual findings are supported by credible 
 3 

evidence they will not be disturbed on appeal. Based upon these 

findings, the commission did not err in granting claimant's 

request for a new panel of physicians. 

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

 Affirmed.