COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

B.W.B CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION AND 

 VIRGINIA CONTRACTORS GROUP 

 SELF-INSURANCE ASSOCIATION 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1952-96-3 PER CURIAM 

 JANUARY 28, 1997 

RALPH E. TAYLOR 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (William H. Fralin, Jr.; Jolly, Place, 

Fralin & Prillaman, on briefs), for 

appellants. 

 (Robert A. Williams; Williams, Luck and 

Williams, on brief), for appellee. 

 B.W.B. Construction Corporation (employer) contends that the 

Workers' Compensation Commission (commission) erred in finding 

that (1) the W.C. Ham Center, a sheltered workshop in which 

employer's vocational rehabilitation representative placed Ralph 

E. Taylor (claimant), was not appropriate vocational 

rehabilitation; and (2) claimant did not unjustifiably refuse to 

cooperate with vocational rehabilitation by failing to regularly 

attend the sheltered workshop program. 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 January 14, 1991, while working for employer as a 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

pipefitter, claimant sustained a compensable injury to his neck 

and head when he struck a steel beam. Following the accident, he 

developed chronic neck pain, headaches, and psychiatric problems. 

 Later in 1991, he underwent surgery for two herniated discs, but 

continued to experience the neck pain, headaches, and psychiatric 

problems. Eventually, claimant's physician released him to 

perform light work. As a result, employer assigned Karen Carr, a 

vocational rehabilitation counselor, to work with claimant. 

 Carr began job search efforts for claimant in the spring or 

summer of 1995. Carr was unable to find claimant a light duty 

job. Therefore, she decided to place claimant in a sheltered 

workshop program. The work claimant performed at the workshop 

involved gluing two pieces of cardboard together and putting 

screws in bags. Carr's asserted goal was to build up claimant's 

work ethic and confidence, although she admitted that the impact 

on claimant's self-esteem from his experience at the workshop 

could be positive or negative. Prior to his January 14, 1991 

injury, claimant had accumulated fifteen years of experience in 

the construction industry. 

 Claimant testified that he objected to being placed at the 

workshop, but reluctantly agreed to try it. He worked 

sporadically, beginning September 6, 1995, often leaving the 

workshop after a few hours. Claimant asserted that he left the 

workshop because the work increased his neck and shoulder pain 

and because he did not want to work with mentally retarded 
 3 

people, who frequently hollered nonsensical questions at him. 

Claimant's rate of pay in the program was $1.50 per hour. 

Claimant stated that this amount was not sufficient to pay for 

the gas necessary to travel to and from the workshop. 

 Carolyn Beale, a rehabilitation specialist employed by the 

workshop, testified that it offers long-term sheltered employment 

to individuals with mental retardation or mental illness. Beale 

stated that twenty-seven out of the thirty clients working with 

claimant were mentally retarded or mentally ill. 

 In denying employer's application, the commission found as 

follows: 

 The Deputy Commissioner concluded that 

the sheltered workshop placement was 

inappropriate vocational rehabilitation for 

the claimant. We agree. The claimant worked 

over fifteen years as a pipefitter, 

carpenter, and sheet metal worker. As the 

Deputy Commissioner noted, placing [claimant] 

with mentally retarded individuals, and 

others with severe mental handicaps, in a 

sheltered workshop, is more likely to reduce 

rather than enhance his self-esteem. Neither 

his physical nor his psychiatric disabilities 

are so severe that he would not benefit from 

more intensive job placement and training 

efforts. 

 The testimony of claimant, Carr, and Beale, as well as 

claimant's medical records, amply support the commission's 

finding that claimant's placement at the sheltered workshop was 

not appropriate vocational rehabilitation pursuant to Code 

§ 65.2-603(A)(3). 

 Because our holding on this issue disposes of this appeal, 
 4 

we will not address the second question presented by employer. 

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

 Affirmed.