COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Humphreys, Be ales and Senior Judge Fitzpatrick

TERRENCE ALLEN McCRADY MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0571-06-3 PER CURIAM NOVEMBER 7, 2006 VALLEY REDI MIX CO., INC. AND COMPANION PROPER TY & CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Terrence A. McCrady, pro se , on brief). (Frederick T. Schubert; Angela C. Fleming; Midkiff, Muncie & Ross, P.C., on brief), for appellees.

Terrence Allen McCrady (claimant) appeal s a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission denying his claim for be nefits. In his claim, appellant alleged he sustained an injury by accident on September 23, 2003, when he was assaulted by his supervisor, which

resulted in his emotional distress. 1 In its February 7, 2006 opinion, the commission ruled that (1) even accepting as accurate claimant’s te stimony and evidence regarding the September 23, 2003 altercation, he failed to prove the type of “shock or fright” necessary for establishing an emotional injury claim associated with that in cident; and (2) to the extent claimant sought

benefits associated with his te rmination in December 2003, no such benefits were awardable as purely psychological disability resulting from disagreements over managerial decisions and

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.

1 Claimant stipulated before the commissi on that he was not cl aiming physical injury.- 2 - conflicts with supervisory personnel resulti ng in purely psychologica l disability are not compensable. On appeal, claimant contends (1) the co mmission erred in denying him a remedy where

his civil suit was barred under th e exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act; (2) the deputy commissioner had an obligation to ask him at the hearing whether he experienced “sudden shock or fright”; (3) it was not mandatory for him to formally aver “sudden shock or fright” in his claim for it to be compensable; (4) he was not required to formally request benefits associated with an occupational disease as opposed to an injury by accident, in order to be compensated under the Act; and (5) he was not required to prove that he was “medically removed from work to receive comp ensation,” where he was unemployed. Claimant did not preserve questions (1) and (2) for appellate review. With respect to question (1), while claimant ra ised this argument before the full commission on review, the commission did not address it in its February 7, 2006 opinion and claimant failed to obtain any ruling on this issue thereafter. He did not file a motion for reconsid eration or rehearing so as to allow the commission the opportunity to address that issue and to correct any perceived error. Accordingly, we are barred from consider ing it for the first time on appeal. See Williams v. Gloucester Sheriff's Dep’t , 266 Va. 409, 411, 587 S.E.2d 546, 548 (2003); Rule 5A:18. With respect to question (2), we have revi ewed the record and th e citations provided by claimant as to where he preser ved this question for appellate re view, but have not found that the question was raised before the commission. Thus , we will not consider it for the first time on appeal. See Rule 5A:18. Although Rule 5A:18 allows exceptions for good cause or to meet the ends of justice, appe llant does not argue that we should invoke these exceptions. See e.g. , Redman v. Commonwealth , 25 Va. App. 215, 221, 487 S.E.2d 269, 272 (1997) (“In order to avail oneself of the exception, a defendant must affirmatively show that a miscarriage of justice has occurr ed, not that a miscarriage might- 3 - have occurred.” (emphasis added)). We will not consider, sua sponte , a “miscarriage of justice” argument under Rule 5A:18.

Edwards v. Commonwealth , 41 Va. App. 752, 761, 589 S.E.2d 444, 448 (2003) ( en banc ). Assuming without deciding that claimant has pr eserved the issues raised by questions (3) and (4), we have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for th e reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See McCrady v. Valley Redi Mix Co., Inc. , VWC File No. 220-62-75 (Feb. 7, 2006). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be fore the Court and argum ent would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. Finally, in light of our summarily affirmi ng the commission’s opinion with respect to the compensability issues, we need not address the disa bility issue raised by claimant in question (5).

Affirmed.