COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bumgardner, Kelsey and Senior Judge Hodges 

SAFEWAY, INCORPORATED 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2024-02-4 PER CURIAM 

 DECEMBER 3, 2002 

LALIT RAM ARYA 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Charles P. Monroe; Duncan & Hopkins, P.C., 

on brief), for appellant. 

 (James E. Swiger; Swiger & Cay, on brief), 

for appellee. 

 Safeway, Inc. (employer) contends the Workers' Compensation 

Commission erred in finding that Lalit Ram Arya (claimant) 

proved that (1) his left shoulder/arm condition constitutes a 

compensable consequence of his compensable February 17, 2000 

right shoulder injury; and (2) he reasonably marketed his 

residual work capacity from March 9, 2001 through May 8, 2001, 

and from August 20, 2001 through November 14, 2001. Upon 

reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that 

this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm 

the commission's decision. Rule 5A:27. 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

I. Compensable Consequence

 [The] doctrine [of compensable 

consequences], also known as the chain of 

causation rule, provides that "'where the 

chain of causation from the original 

industrial injury to the condition for which 

compensation is sought is direct, and not 

interrupted by any intervening cause 

attributable to the [employee's] own 

intentional conduct, then the subsequent 

[condition] should be compensable.'" 

Food Distributors v. Estate of Ball, 24 Va. App. 692, 697, 485 

S.E.2d 155, 158 (1997) (citation omitted). "The simplest 

application of this principle is the rule that all the medical

consequences and sequelae that flow from the primary injury are 

compensable." American Filtrona Co. v. Hanford, 16 Va. App. 

159, 163, 428 S.E.2d 511, 513 (1993) (citation omitted) 

(emphasis added). 

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

to the prevailing party below. 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

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

 In ruling that claimant proved that his left shoulder/arm 

condition was a compensable consequence of his initial right 

shoulder injury, the commission found as follows: 

[C]laimant established that his left 

shoulder surgery was necessitated by the 

increased use of the appendage because of 

the limitations on his right shoulder. We 
- 3 - 

are cognizant as noted in our previous 

opinions that the claimant saw a physician 

for left shoulder pain in 1995. However, 

the claimant continued to perform his 

regular work and sought no additional 

treatment until April 3, 2001, after his 

second right shoulder surgery. Dr. [Ramesh 

G.] Chandra the treating physician who 

performed the surgeries on the claimant has 

causally connected the left shoulder problem 

to the additional use. He had an 

opportunity to observe the left shoulder 

during the surgical procedure and noted that 

there was not a significant pre-existing 

problem. We find his opinion to be more 

persuasive than Dr. [Leo B.] Van Herpe who 

examined the claimant on one occasion and 

based much of his findings on his review of 

Dr. Chandra's reports and tests. 

 Dr. Chandra's medical records and opinions, coupled with 

claimant's testimony, constitute credible evidence to support 

the commission's finding that claimant proved that his left 

shoulder/arm condition was a compensable consequence of his 

compensable February 17, 2000 right shoulder injury. "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). The commission was entitled to 

weigh the medical evidence, to accept Dr. Chandra's opinion, and 

to reject Dr. Van Herpe's contrary opinion. "In determining 

whether credible evidence exists, the appellate court does not 

retry the facts, reweigh the preponderance of the evidence, or 

make its own determination of the credibility of the witnesses." 

Wagner Enters., Inc. v. Brooks, 12 Va. App. 890, 894, 407 S.E.2d 

32, 35 (1991). 
- 4 - 

II. Marketing

 A partially disabled employee is required to make 

reasonable efforts to market his residual earning capacity to be 

entitled to receive continued benefits. See National Linen

Serv. v. McGuinn, 8 Va. App. 267, 269, 380 S.E.2d 31, 33 (1989). 

"In determining whether a claimant has made a reasonable effort 

to market his remaining work capacity, we view the evidence in 

the light most favorable to . . . the prevailing party before 

the commission." Id. at 270, 380 S.E.2d at 33. "What 

constitutes a reasonable marketing effort depends on the facts 

and circumstances of each case." The Greif Cos. v. Sipe, 16 

Va. App. 709, 715, 434 S.E.2d 314, 318 (1993) (citation 

omitted). When the commission's factual determinations are 

supported by credible evidence, they will not be disturbed on 

appeal. Wall St. Deli, Inc. v. O'Brien, 32 Va. App. 217, 

220-21, 527 S.E.2d 451, 453 (2000). The commission determines 

the weight to give the various criteria it considers. National 

Linen, 8 Va. App. at 272, 380 S.E.2d at 34 (citing relevant 

factors). 

 In ruling that claimant proved he made reasonable efforts 

to market his residual work capacity during the periods he was 

released to light duty work, the commission found as follows: 

The claimant has a five pound lifting 

restriction on each arm. While the 

claimant's education in India is the 

equivalent of an associate degree, he has a 

very limited ability to read and write 
- 5 - 

English. After his light duty position was 

terminated in March of 2001, he began 

seeking work through friends. He has 

applied for cashier and restaurant 

positions. He registered with the VEC in 

April. On May 8, 2001, he had surgery on 

the left shoulder and was totally disabled. 

Under the circumstances, we find that the 

claimant made a sufficient effort to find 

work during this period. We further find 

that after the claimant was again released 

to light duty in August of 2001, he as 

supported by the documentary evidence made a 

good faith effort to secure employment 

within his very limited restrictions of not 

lifting over 5 pounds with either arm. 

 Claimant has a limited command of English and was 

restricted from lifting over five pounds with either arm during 

the relevant time periods. Yet, after the termination of his 

light duty position, he looked for numerous jobs as a cashier 

and in the restaurant business through friends and through 

visits to various business locations. He registered with the 

VEC in April 2001. He produced copies of job applications he 

completed at various businesses he visited and other written 

documentation of his job search efforts. In light of claimant's 

limitations, credible evidence supports the commission's finding 

that he made a good faith effort to market his residual work 

capacity. 

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

Affirmed.