COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Bray and Senior Judge Overton 

SUSAN ANN LeBLANC 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1332-01-3 PER CURIAM 

 OCTOBER 23, 2001 

PETROLEUM MARKETERS, INC. AND 

 LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Susan Ann LeBlanc, pro se, on brief). 

 (Thomas H. Miller; Monica L. Taylor; Gentry 

Locke Rakes & Moore, on brief), for 

appellees. 

 Susan Ann LeBlanc (claimant) contends that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission erred in finding that she failed to 

prove that she sustained (1) a loss of use of both arms as a 

result of the compensable January 27, 1990 injury by accident 

entitling her to an award of permanent total disability; and (2) 

permanent partial impairment to her upper extremities as a 

result of that injury by accident. 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. 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 -

 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). 

Unless we can say as a matter of law that claimant's evidence 

sustained her burden of proof, the commission's findings are 

binding and conclusive upon us. See Tomko v. Michael's 

Plastering Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1970). 

Permanent Total Disability

 In denying claimant's application for an award of permanent 

total disability benefits for the loss of use of both of her 

arms, the commission found as follows: 

[T]he Deputy Commissioner reasonably relied 

upon the opinions of Drs. [Raymond F.] 

Morgan, [Murray E.] Joiner, and [Gerald M.] 

Aronoff to support his conclusion that the 

claimant's right arm complaints are not 

causally related to her original injury by 

accident. Dr. Morgan treated [claimant] for 

eight years and stated that she did not have 

significant complaints of right arm pain or 

overuse symptoms during the course of this 

treatment. He declined to causally relate 

the claimant's alleged right arm pain to her 

left arm condition or original injury, and 

stressed that developing these symptoms 

several years after an injury was quite 

unusual. Neither Dr. Joyner's nor 

Dr. Aronoff's examinations revealed any 

pathology for the right upper extremity 

pain, continued left arm complaints, or a 

diagnosis of RSD. Both physicians noted the 

claimant's normal diagnostic tests, and 

Dr. Joiner concluded that she was capable of 

full duty. Dr. Aronoff assigned no 

impairment rating to her right upper 

extremity and also stated that the alleged 

problems with the left upper extremity 
- 3 -

should not limit her capabilities for most 

activities. Similarly, pursuant to AMA 

Guidelines, Dr. Joiner assigned no ratable 

impairment to either of the claimant's upper 

extremities. Both Dr. Joiner and 

Dr. Aronoff disagreed that the alleged right 

upper extremity problem was related to the 

original injury by accident. 

 Dr. [Victor C.] Lee was the only 

physician to conclude that claimant had a 

significant impairment to both upper 

extremities, but he also acknowledged that 

experts could disagree regarding the 

diagnosis and symptoms of RSD. He conceded 

that his diagnosis might not be the only 

correct diagnosis and that his ratings were 

not based on, or otherwise in accordance 

with, AMA Guidelines. 

 "Medical evidence is not necessarily conclusive, but is 

subject to the commission's consideration and weighing." 

Hungerford Mechanical Corp. v. Hobson, 11 Va. App. 675, 677, 401 

S.E.2d 213, 215 (1991). As fact finder, the commission was 

entitled to weigh the medical evidence, to accept the opinions 

of Drs. Morgan, Joiner, and Aronoff, and to reject the opinion 

of Dr. Lee. "Questions raised by conflicting medical opinions 

must be decided by the commission." Penley v. Island Creek Coal 

Co., 8 Va. App. 310, 318, 381 S.E.2d 231, 236 (1989). 

 Because the medical evidence was subject to the 

commission's factual determination, we cannot find as a matter 

of law that claimant's evidence sustained her burden of proof. 
- 4 -

Permanent Partial Disability

 In denying claimant's application for permanent partial 

disability benefits, the commission found as follows: 

At the time of her injury on January 27, 

1990, the Virginia Workers' Compensation Act 

(the Act) did not permit an injured employee 

to claim additional compensation for 

permanent partial disability after already 

receiving 500 weeks of wage loss benefits. 

Although the Act was amended in 1991, the 

amendment does not apply retroactively to a 

claim where the accident occurred before the 

effective date of the amendment. See

Pennington v. Superior Iron Works, 30 Va. 

App. 454, 517 S.E.2d 726 (1999). 

 Based upon the statute in effect at the time of claimant's 

injury by accident and our holding in Pennington, the commission 

did not err in denying claimant's application for an award of 

permanent partial disability benefits. 

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

Affirmed.