Case Name: Allied Fibers & Plastics, et al. v. Ernest J. Cibula
Court: Supreme Court of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1993-04-16
Citations: 245 Va. 337
Docket Number: 
Parties: Allied Fibers & Plastics, et al. v. Ernest J. Cibula
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 245
Pages: 337–338

Head Matter:
Allied Fibers & Plastics, et al. v. Ernest J. Cibula
Record No. 920747
April 16, 1993
Present: All the Justices
S. Vernon Priddy, III (Mary Louise Kramer; Sarah Y. M. Kirby, on briefs), for appellants.
James J. Vergara, Jr. (Peter B. Baruch, on brief), for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this case, the Industrial Commission of Virginia (now the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission) held that the employer, Allied Fibers & Plastics (Allied), was not equitably estopped from asserting the two-year statute of limitations prescribed by Code § 65.1-87 (now Code § 65.2-601) and that the claim of the employee, Ernest J. Cibula, was time-barred. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that "[t]he evidence in this record leads unerringly to the conclusion that Allied is estopped from invoking the statute of limitations." Cibula v. Allied Fibers & Plastics, 14 Va. App. 319, 326, 416 S.E.2d 708, 712 (1992).
In its petition for appeal to this Court, Allied contended that the Court of Appeals erred (1) in holding that the Commission applied an "improper standard" to the question whether Allied was equitably estopped from invoking the statute of limitations, (2) in finding that the case did not present a matter of conflicting evidence or a dispute concerning the Commission's findings of fact, and (3) in refusing to hold that Cibula had failed to preserve the estoppel question for appeal purposes. Determining that the holding of the Court of Appeals regarding an "improper standard" presented a matter of significant precedential value, Code § 17-116.07(B), and that all three of the claims of error should be reviewed, we awarded Allied an appeal.
Upon consideration of Allied's contentions, we find there is no error in the judgment under review. Accordingly, we will adopt the Court of Appeals' opinion as our own and affirm its judgment.
Affirmed.