COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Humphreys and Senior Judge Overton 

JEREMY JON CURLINGS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1100-02-2 PER CURIAM 

 DECEMBER 31, 2002 

HEAVY FLEET PRODUCTS, INC. AND 

 UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Jeremy Jon Curlings, pro se, on briefs). 

 (William F. Karn; Butler, Williams, Pantele & 

Skilling, P.C., on brief), for appellees. 

 Jeremy Jon Curlings raises six "Questions Presented" in his 

opening brief. Based upon our review of the record and the 

"Argument" contained in Curlings's brief, we have determined 

that those questions actually raise two issues for review: (1) 

whether the Workers' Compensation Commission erred in finding 

that Curlings failed to request a timely review of the deputy 

commissioner's May 29, 2001 opinion, and (2) whether the 

commission erred in failing to apply the doctrine of imposition. 

Upon reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude 

that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily 

affirm the commission's decision. Rule 5A:27. 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 -

 On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the prevailing party below. 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). 

 In ruling that the August 2 and August 31, 2001 requests 

for review of the May 29, 2001 opinion were untimely, the 

commission made the following findings: 

It is undisputed that the Deputy 

Commissioner issued the Opinion in question 

on May 29, 2001, and that the claimant 

received a copy of the Opinion by certified 

mail on June 1, 2001. Virginia Code 

§ 65.2-705 provides that a party must file 

an application for Review with the 

Commission within 20 days from receipt of 

notice of an award. Furthermore, it is well 

established that the Commission no longer 

has jurisdiction to review a decision after 

the 20 days have elapsed. 

 The record establishes that the 

claimant was fully aware of his 

responsibility to timely request Review of 

Deputy Commissioner Bruner's May 29, 2001, 

Opinion. The claimant timely noted an 

appeal from the earlier February 29, 2000, 

Opinion by Deputy Commissioner Colville, and 

in his Motion for Reconsideration of the May 

29, 2001, Opinion, he specifically 

emphasized that he was not asking for a 

Review. The Motion for Reconsideration was 

promptly denied, and Deputy Commissioner 

Bruner specifically advised the parties that 

such denial did not impact a timely Request 

for Review. Neither party timely requested 

Review. 
- 3 -

 We are not persuaded by the claimant's 

allegation that Deputy Commissioner Bruner 

made a "mistake" in the May 29, 2001, 

Opinion and that the Commission, therefore, 

retains jurisdiction over this matter 

because a mistake was made. The record 

contains no evidence to support the 

allegation that any mistake occurred. To 

the contrary, the record reflects that the 

claimant received the May 29, 2001, Opinion 

on June 1, 2001, and responded by 

disagreeing with several findings. This 

"disagreement" was manifested in his Motion 

for Reconsideration, which, at his request, 

was specifically not to be considered a 

Request for Review. The claimant's mere 

"disagreement" with the Deputy 

Commissioner's Opinion does not, standing 

alone, persuade us that the May 29, 2001, 

Opinion contains any mistakes. 

 The commission's factual findings are supported by credible 

evidence. If Curlings disagreed with the deputy commissioner's 

May 29, 2001 decision, he could have filed a timely request for 

review with the commission. The record established that 

Curlings was fully aware of that procedure for filing a request 

for review. Instead, he chose to file a motion for 

reconsideration of the deputy commissioner's decision and 

specifically indicated that he was not filing a request for 

review. When the deputy commissioner denied the motion for 

reconsideration on May 31, 2001, he informed Curlings that the 

"denial [did] not alter the time within which a review of the 

case may be taken by any party." Curlings failed to file a 

timely request for review. 
- 4 -

 On August 31, 2001, Curlings's attorney filed with the 

commission a request for review of the May 29, 2001 opinion. 

The request asserted that medical evidence refuted the deputy 

commissioner's finding that Curlings did not sustain neck, back 

and shoulder injuries as a result of his compensable injury by 

accident. The request also noted that the twenty-day period 

allowed for filing for review had expired; however, it asserted 

that a mistake had occurred which allowed the commission to 

exercise its jurisdiction. Nothing in the request alleges, 

however, that Curlings's failure to file a timely request for 

review of the May 29, 2001 opinion was the result of the 

commission's staff's disclosure to him that his neck, back, and 

shoulders were covered under the May 29, 2001 opinion. Because 

Curlings did not raise that argument before the deputy 

commissioner or in the request for review, the commission was 

not required to consider it. Indeed, in a March 18, 2002 letter 

to the commission, Curlings argued for the first time that he 

did not file a timely request for review of the May 29, 2001 

opinion because the commission's staff told him and his father, 

within the twenty-day review period, that his neck, back and 

shoulders were covered under that award. The commission did not 

consider that argument in rendering its April 5, 2002 opinion. 

Accordingly, we will not address that argument on appeal. See

Rule 5A:18. 
- 5 -

 The commission did not err in ruling that evidence in this 

record is not sufficient to justify invoking the doctrine of 

imposition. Credible evidence indicates, as the commission 

found, that Curlings merely disagreed with the deputy 

commissioner's findings. This is not a "mistake" or 

"imposition" as contemplated by Harris v. Diamond Const. Co., 

184 Va. 711, 36 S.E.2d 573 (1946). For these reasons, we affirm 

the commission's decision. 

Affirmed.