COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Frank 

AIAHUN SEMERE 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0533-99-4 PER CURIAM 

 JULY 20, 1999 

R.H. MACY & COMPANY, INC. AND 

 ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE 

 COMPANY OF ILLINOIS 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (James J. Gallinaro; Ray & Gallinaro, on 

brief), for appellant. 

 (Charles F. Midkiff; Midkiff & Hiner, P.C., 

on brief), for appellees. 

 Aiahun Semere (claimant) contends that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission (commission) erred in finding that R.H. 

Macy & Company, Inc. and its insurer (hereinafter referred to as 

"employer") proved that claimant was released to return to all of 

the duties of his pre-injury employment. 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). 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010, 

this opinion is not designated for publication. 
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). 

 On March 27, 1998, after reviewing a description of 

claimant's pre-injury job as a salesman of household appliances, 

Dr. Jorge Mondino opined that claimant was released to return to 

his pre-injury position. On that same date, after receiving a 

copy of claimant's pre-injury job description and based upon an 

EMG performed on claimant, Dr. Ali Ganjei agreed that claimant was 

released to his pre-injury job. In addition, on April 16, 1998, 

Dr. Neil Kahnovitz examined claimant at employer's request. Dr. 

Kahnovitz noted that claimant presented with "rather exaggerated 

symptoms and a total lack of objective findings to correlate with 

his magnified pain complaints." Dr. Kahnovitz agreed "completely 

with the prior recommendations of return to work in at least a 

sedentary setting immediately." Dr. Kahnovitz opined that "there 

is no reason to think that, based on the relatively 

sedentary/light duties involved as a salesman, the patient could 

not return to that job at this time." 

 These uncontradicted medical opinions provide credible 

evidence to support the commission's finding that employer met its 

burden of proving that claimant was able to perform all of the 

duties of his pre-injury work. Moreover, the commission correctly 

acknowledged that in a case, such as this one, where the claimant 

presented no evidence to contradict the accuracy of the pre-injury 

- 2 -
job description, employer was under no duty to offer additional 

affirmative evidence as to the accuracy of that job description. 

The fact that claimant may have been performing a particular act 

at the time of his injury is of no significance, where, as here, 

there was no evidence that such an act was a required or expected 

part of his pre-injury job. 

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

Affirmed.

- 3 -