Opinion ID: 1059753
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: CITY OF HOPEWELL v. TIRPAK

Text: The employer first contends that the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the Commission's determination that the claimant's evidence established a communication of occupational disease on February 17, 1995. We disagree with this contention, because the Commission's factual findings are binding on appeal. See Code § 65.2-706(A); Falls Church Constr. Co. v. Laidler, 254 Va. at 478-79, 493 S.E.2d at 524; Ivey v. Puckett Constr. Co., 230 Va. at 488, 338 S.E.2d at 641. Here, the Commission relied on the claimant's testimony that Dr. Kumar told him on that date that his heart disease was caused by stress on the job. Since the Commission accepted the claimant's testimony on this issue, we conclude that the Court of Appeals properly refused to disturb the Commission's factual finding on appeal. The employer next asserts that the Court of Appeals ignored the concession by Tirpak that Hopewell had rebutted the heart disease presumption. We disagree with the employer's argument, because the record shows that Tirpak conceded only that non-work-related causes [of his disease] were adduced by the employer. He made no further concession, but merely addressed the proper outcome of the case in the event the Court of Appeals concluded that the employer had overcome the presumption. Next, we disagree with the employer's argument that it would be denied due process if the statutory presumption is upheld in the face of credible evidence of non-work-related causes of the claimant's disease. In Newman, we stated that, by establishing the statutory presumption, the legislature made a public policy judgment allocating to the employer a burden of proof that carried the ultimate risk of non-persuasion. 222 Va. at 541, 281 S.E.2d at 901. We explained that the legislature's decision to cast that burden upon the employer infringes no constitutional right, because the employer may introduce evidence to overcome the statutory presumption. Id. Thus, the employer's right of due process is not violated by requiring it to produce a preponderance of the evidence in accordance with the two-part test set forth above. We also find no merit in the employer's central contention in this appeal, that the employer met the burden of proof set forth in Overbey to overcome the statutory presumption by proving a non-work-related cause of Tirpak's disease. As stated above, proof by a preponderance of the evidence of a non-work-related cause of a claimant's disease satisfies only one part of the two-part test applied in Overbey and several of our earlier decisions. To overcome the statutory presumption, the employer must also establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant's disease was not caused by his employment. See Newman, 222 Va. at 539, 281 S.E.2d at 899-900; Page, 218 Va. at 847-48, 241 S.E.2d at 777. Although we disagree with the Court of Appeals' characterization of the Commission's decision, we observe that the Commission did not state whether the employer met the required two-part test in accordance with its statutory burden of producing a preponderance of the evidence to overcome the presumption. Therefore, on remand, the Commission will be required to reconsider the evidence under that standard. Finally, we note that we have considered the remaining assignments of error raised by the employer. We conclude that they do not require discussion because they are resolved by our earlier analysis in this opinion, are beyond the scope of the judgment appealed from, or are without merit. For these reasons, we will affirm that part of the Court of Appeals' judgment addressing the issues of subject matter jurisdiction, [] due process, date of communication of occupational disease, and the absence of a concession by Tirpak regarding the statutory presumption. We will vacate the balance of the Court of Appeals' judgment, vacate the Commission's award of benefits to Tirpak, and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for remand to the Commission to reconsider the evidence presented in accordance with the principles expressed in this opinion. Record No. 980612 Reversed and remanded. Record No. 980861 Reversed and remanded. Record No. 982126 Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.