COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Chief Ju dge Fitzpatrick, Judges Benton and Bumgardner Argued at Richmond, Virginia

JAMES MELVIN ASHBY OPINION BY v. Record No. 2777-04-3 CHIEF JUDGE JOHANNA L. FITZPATRICK NOVEMBER 22, 2005 RAMAR COAL COMP ANY, INC. AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION Steven R. Minor (Dawn Figue iras; R. Lucas Hobbs; Elliott, Lawson & Minor, on br iefs), for appellant. Brian J. Rife (Penn, Stuart & Eskridge, on brief), for appellees.
James Melvin Ashby (claimant) contends the Workers’ Compensation Commission (commission) erred in finding his request for review was untimely under Rule 3.1 and Code § 65.2-705. The sole issue on appeal is whether th e commission erred in its determination that the actual notice provision of Code § 65.2-705 applies on ly to awards reached after a hearing. We reverse the commission and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. BACKGROUND The facts of this case are undisputed. Clai mant sustained a work-related injury February 3, 1994. The carrier voluntarily paid claimant the maximum 500 weeks of temporary total disability. Claimant never file d a claim with the commission fo r those benefits or his initial injury. At the end of the 500 weeks of temporar y total disability, clai mant remained totally disabled. He filed a claim for permanent and to tal disability in an attempt to preserve his indemnity benefits. However, the commission w ould not consider his claim for permanent and-2- total disability without an award th at memorialized the in itial injury and benefits already paid to claimant. Claimant and carrier signed and submitted an Agreement to Pay Benefits. The commission entered a “record purposes only” awar d based upon the Agreement to Pay Benefits. The award order also provided lifetime medi cal benefits for “reas onable, necessary, and authorized medical treatment causa lly related to the 02/ 03/1994 injury.” The award was issued April 15, 2004 and mailed by regular mail to all part ies. Claimant’s counsel received the award April 19, 2004, and claimant received the award April 21, 2004. On May 5, 2004, claimant’s counsel requested a review of th e award by letter sent regular mail. As gr ounds for the review, he stated that the carrier failed to include medi cal benefits for an alleged second work injury. The commission received the request for revi ew on May 7, 2004. Employer’s counsel moved to dismiss the request for review because it failed to comply with Rule 3.1. The commission held that: Contrary to the claimant’s ar gument on Review, his counsel’s receipt of the Award Order on April 19, 2004 (and the claimant’s receipt on April 21, 2004), did not al ter the requirement to file the request for Review within 20 days as required by Rule 3.1. Virginia Code § 65.2-705, in c onjunction with Code § 65.2-704, mandates a filing of a request for Review within 20 days after a party’s receipt of an Award or Opinion. These Sections pertain to the receipt of an Award or Op inion decided by the Commission following a hearing. The current case involved an Award Order based upon the parties’ submitted Agreement to Pay Benefits. Claimant’s request for review was dismissed as untimely. Claimant appeals that decision.
II. ANALYSIS Claimant contends that his request for revi ew was filed timely becau se the review period is calculated from the date of receipt of the award pursuant to C ode § 65.2-705. This is solely an issue of law that we review de novo . “[T]he question presented is solely an issue of law. Issues of law are reviewed de novo by this Court.” Ratliff v. Carter Machinery Co., Inc. , 39 Va. App. 586, 589-90, 575 S.E.2d 571, 573 (2003) (citing Rust y’s Welding Service, Inc. v. Gibson , 29-3- Va. App. 119, 127, 510 S.E.2d 255, 259 (1999) (citi ng Sinclair v. Shelter Constr. Corp. , 23 Va. App. 154, 156-57, 474 S.E.2d 856, 857-58 (1996))). While we generally give gr eat weight and deference, on appeal, to the commission’s c onstruction of the Workers’ Compensation Act, we are not bound by the commission’s legal analysis in this or prior cases . Indeed, we will withhold the deference we normally accord the commission’s statutory interpretation of the Workers’ Compensation Act when the commission’s interpretation conflic ts with the plain language of the statute. We are required to c onstrue the law as it is written. An erroneous construction by those ch arged with its administration cannot be permitted to override the clear mandates of a statute. We are not authorized to ame nd, alter or extend the Workers’ Compensation Act’s provisions beyond their obvious meaning. Peacock v. Browning Ferris, Inc. , 38 Va. App. 241, 248-49, 563 S. E.2d 368, 372 (2002) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Rule 3.1 provides that: “A request for revi ew of a decision or aw ard of the Commission shall be filed by a party in writing with the Cler k of the Commission within 20 days of the date of such decision or award.” Code § 65.2-705(A) provides in pertinent part: If an application for review is made to the Commission within 20 days after receipt of notice of such award to be sent as provided in subsection A of § 65.2-704, 1 the full Commission, . . ., shall review the evidence, or if deemed advisable, . . ., hear the parties at issue. . . . The Commission shall make an award which, together with a statement of the fi ndings of fact, rulings of law, and other matters pertinent to the questio ns at issue, shall be filed with the record of the proceedings. A copy of the award shall be sent immediately to the parties at issu e by priority mail with delivery confirmation or equivalent mailing option. (Emphasis added.) The commission’s determin ation that the “receipt” of notice required by Code § 65.2-705 applies only to an award entered af ter an evidentiary hear ing and excludes this

1 Code § 65.2-704(A) provides the award be sent by priority mail with delivery confirmation or equivalent. N either the commission nor the claima nt used priority, certified or registered mail.-4- requirement for awards entered upon agreements r eached by the parties has neither statutory nor case law support. There is no substantive differen ce between an award issued as the result of an evidentiary hearing and one reached as a result of an agreement between the parties. We have held that “an award of compensation entered upon [an Agreement to Pay Benefits] is as enforceable as an award entered in a conteste d proceeding.” Butler v. City of Virginia Beach , 22 Va. App. 601, 604, 471 S.E.2d 830, 830 (1996). See also J & D Masonry v. Kornegay , 224 Va. 292, 295, 295 S.E.2d 887, 889 (1982). Thus there is no rationale for treating the two procedures differently. Code § 65.2-705, as amended in 1998, allows the filing for a review “within 20 days after receipt of notice of such award.” (Emphasis added.) While Rule 3.1 states that the filing is to be done within 20 days of the date of the award, it is clear that any limitations set by the commission’s rule must give way to the stat utory mandate. Where a rule of the commission conflicts with a statute, the statute must prevail. See Sargent Electric Company v. Woodall , 228 Va. 419, 424-25, 323 S.E.2d 102, 105 (1984); Brown v. United Airlines , 34 Va. App. 273, 276, 540 S.E.2d 521, 522 (2001) (noting that the commi ssion has no power to make rules that are inconsistent with the Worker s’ Compensation Act). See also Peacock , 38 Va. App. at 246 n.1, 563 S.E.2d at 371 n.1. Additionally, we note that the commission ha s repeatedly found that Rule 3.1 and Code § 65.2-705 apply to awards issued wi thout evidentiary hearings. The employee asserts that the twenty day period for filing a petition for review pursuant to Code of Virginia § 65.2-705 is inapplicable . . . because the Co mmission entered an award order memorializing memoranda of agreement to which both parties had affixed their signatures. . . . [W]e disagree with the employee’s assertion that the period allowed fo r review should not apply in the present case. Parties to awards and orders entered by the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commissi on are always entitled to the right of review provided in Code of Virginia § 65.2-705. If this were not the case, for example, a party would not have the-5- opportunity to petition for review of a technical error in an award which memorializes the agreements of the parties. Hall v. The Weather Conditions , 75 Va. WC 66 (1996). See also Davidson v. Eastern State Hosp. , 04 WC UNP 1943194 (employer appealed commission award entered based on agreements submitted by parties untimely and Rule 3.1 and Code § 65.2-705 applied); Baacke v. Danis Environmental , No. 209-82-68 (Va. Workers’ Co mp. Comm’n July 1, 2003) (award entered based on agreements appealed outsi de 20 days and Rule 3.1 and Code § 65.2-705 applied); Henderson v. Henrico Public Works , No. 189-66-52 (Va. Workers’ Comp. Comm’n April 21, 2003) (settlement approval appealed outside of 20 days and Rule 3.1 and Code § 65.2-705 applied); Cain v. Warrior Express , No. 174-64-95 (Va. Workers’ Comp. Comm’n September 20, 2001) (commission granted relief reque sted in employer’s application for hearing and request for review was untimely, Rule 3.1 and Code § 65.2-705 applied); Daly v. SMC
Concrete , No. 197-84-90 (Va. Workers’ Comp. Co mm’n July 26, 2001) (settlement approval appealed outside of 20 days and Rule 3.1 a nd Code § 65.2-705 applied); Brandon v. Richmond Highway CVS , No. 192-13-88 (Va. Work ers’ Comp. Comm’n March 30, 2000) (claimant requested review of commission decision that he was not entitled to benefits based on his application one month after decision was rende red and Rule 3.1 and Code § 65.2-705 applied). Therefore, based on the uncontested evidence in the instant case, claimant’s request was filed timely. Claimant’s counsel received the award on April 19, 2004, and the commission received his request for review on May 7, 2004, a pe riod of 19 days. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand to the commission for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 2
Reversed and remanded.

2 Because we find the request for review was timely, we do not address claimant’s second issue on appeal, that modificati on of the award was justified as a result of fraud, mistake or imposition.