Title: Williams v. Gloucester Sheriff's Dept.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 022213
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: October 31, 2003

Present:  All the Justices 
 
JEFFREY L. WILLIAMS 
 
v.  Record No. 022213    OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY 
 
 
 
October 31, 2003 
GLOUCESTER (COUNTY OF) SHERIFF'S 
DEPARTMENT, ET AL. 
 
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
The issue in this appeal is whether the contemporaneous 
objection rule prohibits a party from appealing a decision of 
the Workers' Compensation Commission rendered on grounds 
neither raised nor previously addressed in the proceedings, if 
an objection to that decision was not made the subject of a 
motion for rehearing or reconsideration before the Commission. 
 
Jeffrey L. Williams sought workers' compensation benefits 
for heart disease he claimed he developed while employed by 
the Gloucester County Sheriff's Department.  A deputy 
commissioner denied his claim, and Williams sought review of 
this decision by the full Commission.  The Commission affirmed 
the decision of the deputy commissioner, but on different 
grounds.  The Commission determined that Williams' last 
"injurious exposure" occurred while he was employed by the 
Virginia Peninsula Regional Jail Authority, not the Gloucester 
County Sheriff's Department, and therefore, that Williams was 
not entitled to benefits from the Sheriff's Department. 
 
Williams appealed the Commission's decision to the Court 
of Appeals, asserting that the Commission erred in denying 
benefits based on its conclusions regarding Williams' last 
injurious exposure.  The Court of Appeals in an unpublished 
memorandum per curiam opinion refused to consider Williams' 
appeal, holding that Williams failed to preserve the issue for 
appeal because he did not file a motion for reconsideration 
raising this issue before the Commission.  This failure, 
according to the Court of Appeals, deprived the Commission of 
the opportunity to correct the alleged error and thus violated 
the principles associated with the contemporaneous objection 
rule, Rule 5A:18.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed 
the Commission's decision.  Jeffrey L. Williams v. Gloucester 
(County of) Sheriff's Department and Virginia Municipal Group 
Self-Insurance Association, No. 0905-02-4 (August 27, 2002) 
(memorandum per curiam). 
 
In this appeal, Williams argues that because the basis 
for the Commission's decision was not raised, litigated, or in 
any way considered as an issue in the case prior to the 
issuance of the Commission's decision, because there is no 
formal procedure for filing a motion for reconsideration 
before the Commission, and because such motion does not stay 
the time for filing an appeal, the Court of Appeals should not 
 
2
have applied Rule 5A:18 to bar his appeal.  We disagree with 
Williams. 
 
The contemporaneous objection rule, embodied in Rule 
5A:18 in the Court of Appeals and Rule 5:25 in this Court, is 
based on the principle that a litigant has the responsibility 
to afford a court the opportunity to consider and correct a 
perceived error before such error is brought to the appellate 
court for review.  Reid v. Baumgardner, 217 Va. 769, 773, 232 
S.E.2d 778, 781 (1977).  The contemporaneous objection rules 
in each court exist "to protect the trial court from appeals 
based upon undisclosed grounds, to prevent the setting of 
traps on appeal, to enable the trial judge to rule 
intelligently, and to avoid unnecessary reversals and 
mistrials."  Reid v. Boyle, 259 Va. 356, 372, 527 S.E.2d 137, 
146 (2000) (quoting Fisher v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 403, 414, 
374 S.E.2d 46, 52 (1988)).  These rules are not limited to 
evidentiary rulings and require objection while the tribunal 
is in a position to correct a claimed error.  Id.; Reid v. 
Baumgardner, 217 Va. at 774, 232 S.E.2d at 781. 
 
Williams is correct when he states that the Rules of the 
Commission do not contain specific procedures for a motion for 
rehearing or motion to reconsider; nevertheless such motions 
are not uncommon, and the Commission may vacate the original 
decision pending consideration of such a motion.  Hamilton v. 
 
3
Basic Construction Company, 77 O.I.C. 245, 247 (1998).  Even 
if the original decision is not vacated, filing a motion for 
reconsideration does not impair a litigant's right to pursue a 
timely appeal. 
Finally, the requirement that a litigant file a motion 
for rehearing or reconsideration to preserve an issue for 
appeal under these circumstances is not a new requirement.  
The Court of Appeals has consistently held that the failure to 
file such motions under these circumstances bars raising the 
issue on appeal.  Henrico County Public Utilities v. Taylor, 
34 Va. App. 233, 241-42 n.4, 540 S.E.2d 501, 506 n.4 (2001); 
Overhead Door Co. of Norfolk v. Lewis, 29 Va. App. 52, 62, 509 
S.E.2d 535, 539-40 (1999). 
For these reasons, we conclude that the Court of Appeals 
did not err in applying Rule 5A:18 in this case and holding 
that Williams failed to preserve the issues he sought to raise 
in his appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the 
Court of Appeals. 
Affirmed.
 
4