1 

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

MICHAEL T. BOWLES 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0753-97-2 PER CURIAM 

 SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 

LINWOOD WAYNE WINGO 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (W. Richard Hairfield; A. Russell Watson; 

Hairfield, Morton & Allen, on brief), for 

appellant. 

 (Laura A. McDonald, on brief), for appellee. 

 Michael T. Bowles (employer) contends that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission (commission) erred in finding that 

Linwood Wayne Wingo (claimant) was not obligated to market his 

residual capacity after March 27, 1996. 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. 

 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). 

Factual findings made by the commission will be upheld on appeal 

if supported by credible evidence. See James v. Capitol Steel 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1989). 

 On February 9, 1996, claimant sustained a compensable injury 

by accident, while in the course of his employment as a vinyl 

siding installer, when a nail ricochetted into his left eye. 

 In ruling that claimant was not obligated to market his 

residual capacity prior to his impending September 1996 surgery, 

the commission relied heavily upon a July 30, 1996 letter written 

by Dr. Carl D. Outen, claimant's treating physician. In that 

letter, Dr. Outen opined as follows: 

 Mr. Linwood Wingo has been unable to do his 

PRE-INJURY EMPLOYMENT since February 9, 1996. 

 He has been unable to bend, stoop or lift. 

He could not get sand, dust or wind in his 

eye because of extreme eye irritation and 

light sensitivity. Mr. Wingo has experienced 

constant lid swelling and tearing due to 

corneal sutures which were removed several 

weeks ago. Mr. Wingo has been unable to do 

any outside work, operate machinery or motor 

vehicles due to his loss of depth perception. 

 This patient would have been unlikely to 

hold a desk or sales job. It would have been 

extremely difficult for this patient to find 

any work given these limitations. 

In addition, claimant testified that at the time of the July 31, 

1996 hearing before Deputy Commissioner Herring, he had only 

recently regained his driver's license and drove only on short 

errands. Claimant's past work experience consists solely of 

carpentry work and he has a tenth grade education. At the time 

of the hearing, claimant was scheduled to undergo another surgery 

in September 1996. 

 This Court has recognized that in analyzing an injured 
 3 

employee's duty to market his or her residual capacity, "'what is 

reasonable in a given case will depend upon all of the facts and 

surrounding circumstances. An important factor is the physical 

condition and the limitations placed upon the employee by his 

physicians.'" Ridenhour v. City of Newport News, 12 Va. App. 

415, 417, 404 S.E.2d 89, 90 (1991) (quoting Great Atl. & Pac. Tea 

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

 Dr. Outen's opinions and claimant's testimony provide 

credible evidence to support the commission's findings, which are 

binding on appeal. In light of the totality of the facts and 

surrounding circumstances, including claimant's severe 

limitations as described by Dr. Outen, claimant's limited work 

experience and training, and his impending surgery in September 

1996, the commission was entitled to conclude that claimant was 

not obligated to market his residual work capacity after 

March 27, 1996. 

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

 Affirmed.