COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Overton and Bumgardner 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

CARL R. CRAWFORD 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 2486-97-3 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON 

 MAY 5, 1998 

VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYSTEM 

 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG 

Richard S. Miller, Judge 

 John E. Falcone (Smith & Falcone, on briefs), 

for appellant. 

 Robert L. Walker, Assistant Attorney General 

(Richard Cullen, Attorney General; Brian J. 

Goodman, Assistant Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Carl R. Crawford (claimant) was denied disability retirement 

pursuant to Code § 51.1-156(B) because the Virginia Retirement 

System (VRS) concluded he was not injured. He contends on appeal 

that 1) VRS was bound by a previous award from the Virginia 

Workers' Compensation Commission (VWCC) which stated that 

claimant was entitled to workers' compensation disability 

benefits and 2) the VRS finding lacks substantial evidence to 

support it. Because we find that VRS is not bound by VWCC 

disability awards and there is substantial evidence to support 

the VRS finding, we affirm. 

 The parties are fully conversant with the record in this 

case and because this memorandum opinion has no precedential 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

value, no recitation of the facts is necessary. 

 Claimant argues Code § 51.1-157(B)1

 "requires VRS to defer 

to and adopt a Workers' Compensation award" when the VWCC has 

found an applicant is disabled. Subsection (B) speaks to 

calculation of disability retirement benefits after disability 

has been established, not before. We find nothing in this 

section nor any other code provision which supports claimant's 

argument. VRS retirement benefits are based on "medical 

examination or a review . . . of pertinent medical records," Code 

§ 51.1-156(E), not the decision of another administrative agency. 

 Claimant's second contention, that VRS's denial lacks 

substantial evidence in support, is equally misplaced. VRS is 

required to use a Medical Board to certify that a claimant is 

 

 1Code § 51.1-157(B) states: 

 Workers' compensation guarantee. - If a 

member retires for disability from a cause 

which is compensable under the Virginia 

Workers' Compensation Act (Sec. 65.2-100 et 

seq.), the amount of the annual retirement 

allowance shall equal sixty-six and 

two-thirds percent of the member's average 

final compensation if the member does not 

qualify for primary social security benefits 

under the provisions of the Social Security 

Act in effect on the date of his retirement. 

If the member qualifies for primary social 

security benefits under the provisions of the 

Social Security Act in effect on the date of 

his retirement, the allowance payable from 

the retirement system shall equal fifty 

percent of his average final compensation. A 

member shall be entitled to the larger of the 

retirement allowance as determined under the 

provisions of subsection A or under the 

provisions of this subsection. 
- 3 - 

incapacitated, the disability is permanent and the claimant 

should be retired. Code § 51.1-124.23(B)(3). Our review of this 

determination asks only whether there was substantial evidence to 

support it. Code § 9-6.14:17. "The phrase 'substantial 

evidence' refers to 'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind 

might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Va. Real 

Estate Comm. v. Bias, 226 Va. 264, 269, 308 S.E.2d 123, 125 

(1983) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 

229 (1938)). 

 Dr. William Andrews found claimant was permanently disabled. 

 Drs. Morris McCrary and Gregory Helm found he could perform all 

of the duties listed in his job description. VRS chose to 

believe the opinions of Drs. McCrary and Helm and lend less 

weight to Dr. Andrews, as it was entitled to do. See Wagner 

Enters., Inc. v. Brooks, 12 Va. App. 890, 894, 407 S.E.2d 32, 35 

(1991) ("the appellate court does not retry the facts, reweigh 

the preponderance of the evidence, or make its own determination 

of the credibility of the witnesses"). The opinions of two 

medical doctors is adequate to support VRS's decision. 

 For the foregoing reasons, the denial of claimant's 

application for disability retirement is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.