COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Willis, Frank and Clements 

LAMIEH SALIMI 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0446-01-3 PER CURIAM 

 JUNE 26, 2001 

JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY/ 

 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (A. Thomas Lane, Jr., on brief), for 

appellant. 

 (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General; Judith 

Williams Jagdmann, Deputy Attorney General; 

Gregory E. Lucyk, Senior Assistant Attorney 

General; Donald G. Powers, Assistant Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellee. 

 Lamieh Salimi (claimant) contends that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission erred in finding that she failed to 

prove that she was unable to perform the duties of her 

pre-injury job as a counselor beginning February 24, 1999. 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). 

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

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

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). 

 In denying claimant disability benefits beginning 

February 24, 1999 on the ground that she failed to prove she was 

unable to perform her pre-injury job, the commission found as 

follows: 

[T]he medical evidence does not establish 

that the claimant was incapable of her 

pre-injury work. By the claimant's own 

admission, fully two-thirds of her 

pre-injury job involved the sedentary duties 

associated with clinical and office work, 

and she generally agreed that she was 

capable of performing these duties except 

for the occasional day when her knee would 

be swollen or painful. The remaining 

one-third of the claimant's job duties 

involved her participation in outreach 

programs which sometimes required her to 

carry a briefcase, walk to various parts of 

the campus, and stand while giving 

presentations. Although the claimant 

alleged that these duties would prevent her 

from performing her pre-injury job, we are 

more persuaded by Dr. [Frank C.] McCue's 

January 26, 1999, limitation of the 

claimant's activities for only "6-8 weeks 

post-op," and Dr. [Kathleen] Bell's 

inability to comment on the claimant's 

disability status in her January 18, 1999, 

responses to claimant's counsel's 

questionnaire. We also note, as did the 

Deputy Commissioner, the claimant's failure 

to prove that her participation in the 

outreach programs required walking for long 

distances or standing while making 

presentations. Furthermore, considering the 

record developed below, we find nothing 

inappropriate or unreasonable in the Deputy 

Commissioner's inference that the claimant 
- 3 - 

"presumably could have driven, as opposed to 

walking, to other buildings on the campus." 

Finally, we are particularly impressed with 

the claimant's ability to travel abroad for 

several months during which she also alleged 

significant limitations in her ability to 

walk, stand and carry a briefcase. 

 The absence of any medical evidence that claimant was 

restricted from performing her pre-injury job after February 24, 

1999 supports the commission's finding that claimant failed to 

prove that she was unable to perform the duties of her 

pre-injury job as of that date. Moreover, the commission 

considered claimant's testimony that she could not perform the 

duties required of the outreach work. However, as fact finder, 

the commission was entitled to infer that claimant, who was able 

to travel abroad for several months during a time when she 

claimed to be significantly restricted from standing and 

walking, could have performed her mostly sedentary office job 

and that she could have driven to the different campus buildings 

and presented information to students from a sitting position 

rather than standing, if necessary. 

 Based upon this record, we cannot find as a matter of law 

that claimant's evidence sustained her burden of proving that 

she was unable to perform the duties of her pre-injury job as of 

February 24, 1999. Accordingly, we affirm the commission's 

decision. 

 Affirmed.