COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Willis and Annunziata 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

BAGBY ELECTRIC OF VIRGINIA, INC., 

 MERCHANTS OF VIRGINIA GROUP 

 SELF-INSURANCE ASSOCIATION AND 

 TRIGON ADMINISTRATORS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1069-97-2 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. 

 NOVEMBER 25, 1997 

WILLIAM BARRY CLARK 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 Bradford C. Jacob (R. Temple Mayo; Taylor & 

Walker, P.C., on brief), for appellants. 

 Laura Ann McDonald (Geoffrey R. McDonald, 

P.C., on brief), for appellee. 

 On appeal, Bagby Electric of Virginia, Inc., Merchants of 

Virginia Group Self-Insurance Association and Trigon 

Administrators (Bagby) contend that the Workers' Compensation 

Commission erred as a matter of law in finding that William Barry 

Clark adequately marketed his residual work capacity. We 

disagree and affirm the award. 

 On January 18, 1994, Clark suffered a compensable industrial 

injury. At the time of the accident, Clark was forty-three years 

old and was employed by Bagby as a journeyman electrician. His 

educational background included high school and one-and-a-half 

years of college. His employment history included bagging 

groceries, delivering newspapers, cutting meat, selling 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

automobile parts and service in the United States Army. 

 In August, 1995, after receiving medical treatment, Clark 

returned to light duty work at Bagby. He was laid off in 

January, 1996. On July 1, 1996, he began looking for a position 

that "didn't involve a lot of lifting, that would also allow 

[him] to kind of sit, and stand, or move around when [he] 

experienced discomfort." 

 Between July 1, 1996, and August 9, 1996, Clark contacted 

thirty-six employers. He made those contacts without prior 

knowledge of any specific job openings, either while he was 

shopping or while actively searching for a job. The prospective 

employers included grocery stores, pharmacies, auto parts and 

hardware stores, bakeries, and general stores. If a prospective 

employer expressed interest, Clark explained his physical 

limitations. From those contacts, Clark completed one job 

application, at an auto parts store. 

 Based upon Clark's level of education and upon his ignorance 

of job opportunities at the contacted businesses, the deputy 

commissioner ruled that Clark had failed to market his residual 

capacity adequately. The full commission reversed, ruling that 

the uncontradicted evidence "reflected that [Clark] commenced a 

concerted and good faith effort" in seeking a job. 

 To continue to receive benefits under the Workers' 

Compensation Act, an injured employee must make reasonable 

efforts to market his or her remaining work capacity. Virginia 
- 3 - 

Wayside Furniture, Inc. v. Burnette, 17 Va. App. 74, 78, 435 

S.E.2d 156, 159 (1993). In National Linen Serv. v. McGuinn, 8 

Va. 267, 380 S.E.2d 31 (1989), we held that: 

 [I]n deciding whether a partially disabled 

employee has made a reasonable effort to find 

suitable employment commensurate with his 

abilities, the commission should consider 

such factors as: (1) the nature and extent 

of employee's disability; (2) the employee's 

training, age, experience, and education; (3) 

the nature and extent of employee's job 

search; (4) the employee's intent in 

conducting his job search; (5) the 

availability of jobs in the area suitable for 

the employee, considering his disability; and 

(6) any other matter affecting employee's 

capacity to find suitable employment. 

Id. at 272, 380 S.E.2d at 34 (footnotes omitted). Thus, the 

reasonableness of a claimant's job search depends upon the facts 

and circumstances of each case. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. 

Bateman, 4 Va. App. 459, 467, 359 S.E.2d 98, 102 (1987). 

 Clark testified that between July 1, 1996, and August 9, 

1996, he interviewed thirty-six prospective employers concerning 

job opportunities. He considered himself "trainable" and sought 

primarily a sales position. While he filled out only one job 

application, "the record does not suggest that employers accept 

applications from a person seeking light duty employment . . . ." 

Brown v. Tidewater Constr. Co., 19 Va. App. 676, 679, 454 S.E.2d 

42, 43 (1995). Clark testified also that he planned to follow up 

with several of the prospective employers regarding possible 

employment opportunities. 

 Bagby contends that "cold calls," or job interviews without 
- 4 - 

an appointment, constituted an unacceptable method of marketing 

Clark's residual capacity to work. However, the record is silent 

as to the efficacy of unsolicited and personal job contacts. 

Furthermore, we recognize that many entry level positions are 

secured by direct contact with employers, and without formal 

announcement of job vacancies. 

 Next, Bagby contends that Clark sought jobs for which he was 

not qualified. Clark acknowledged that the physical requirements 

for selling auto parts could "get out of hand" and that stocking 

merchandise might pose "a great problem" for him in some cases. 

However, he testified that he was capable of performing these 

tasks. 

 Finally, Bagby contends that Clark's job search amounted to 

a "casual inquiry." Clark admitted that for six months he did 

not look seriously for a job. He did not seek, and was not 

awarded, compensation for this period. There was no proof that 

he registered with the Virginia Employment Commission or read the 

classified newspaper advertisements. Yet, the commission found 

that he had engaged in a "good faith effort" to find a job. 

Clark's prior experience in selling auto parts, working in a 

grocery store and operating a cash register led him to pursue 

such work, when his injury precluded him from continuing in his 

regular trade. 

 In determining whether a claimant adequately marketed his 

capacity to work, we construe the evidence in the light most 
- 5 - 

favorable to the party prevailing below. R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. 

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

Where there is no conflict in the evidence, the sufficiency of 

the evidence is an issue of law. Brown, 19 Va. App. at 680-81, 

454 S.E.2d at 44. The evidence in this case is uncontradicted. 

 Clark's testimony is not inherently incredible. The record 

supports the commission's finding that Clark marketed his 

residual work capacity adequately. Accordingly, we affirm the 

commission's award. 

 Affirmed.