COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

THOMAS R. BRANDON, JR. 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1877-97-2 PER CURIAM 

 DECEMBER 23, 1997 

CITY OF RICHMOND FIRE DEPARTMENT 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Geoffrey R. McDonald; Laura A. McDonald; 

Geoffrey R. McDonald, P.C., on brief), for 

appellant. 

 (William Joe Hoppe, Senior Assistant City 

Attorney; Office of the City Attorney, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Thomas R. Brandon, Jr. (claimant) contends that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission abused its discretion by refusing to hold 

the City of Richmond Fire Department (employer) responsible for 

Brandon's attorney's fees pursuant to Code § 65.2-713. 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. Rule 5A:27. 

 Code § 65.2-713 authorizes the commission to assess the 

costs of the proceedings, including a reasonable attorney's fee, 

against an employer who has defended any proceeding without 

reasonable grounds. "Attorney's fees may be awarded in a 

workers' compensation case only when it is defended 'without 

reasonable grounds.'" Volvo White Truck Corp. v. Hedge, 1 Va. 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

App. 195, 201, 336 S.E.2d 903, 907 (1985). 

 "On appeal, we review 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). 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). 

 The commission held that employer defended against the claim 

on reasonable grounds and declined to assess attorney's fees. In 

so ruling, the commission stated as follows: 

 The carrier has the right to fully 

investigate any claim to determine its 

compensability. The claimant was contacted 

by a claims adjuster who requested that he 

provide additional information and, if 

necessary, a recorded statement, neither of 

which was provided. Although the Employer's 

First Report of Accident stated that he felt 

a "pop," this evidence does not conclusively 

prove an injury by accident. Additionally, 

the medical records are somewhat conflicting, 

and the recorded statement could have cleared 

any confusion surrounding this issue. We 

find the carrier's request for additional 

information in the form of a recorded 

statement was reasonable. Since they did not 

receive full cooperation with the 

investigation, they had no choice but to go 

to Hearing on the matter. 

 Based upon the inconsistencies between the Employer's First 

Report of Accident and the medical records concerning the 

description of claimant's accident and subsequent injury, the 

commission could conclude that employer acted reasonably in 
 3 

deciding that it needed additional information to determine the 

compensability of the claim. Claimant refused to provide 

employer with such information. Furthermore, the record reveals 

that claimant's version of events ultimately differed from that 

of his long-time friend and co-worker, Donald Shires, raising a 

credibility issue for the commission to determine. 

 Based upon this record, credible evidence supports the 

commission's finding that employer's defense of the claim was 

reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision. 

 Affirmed.