Opinion
Record No. 0651-95-3
Decided: September 19, 1995
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
Affirmed.
(A. Thomas Lane, Jr., on brief), for appellant.
(J. David Griffin; Fowler, Griffin, Coyne Coyne, on brief), for appellees.
Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Bray and Annunziata
Pursuant to Code Sec. 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
The sole issue raised on appeal by Richard G. Broschinski (claimant) is that the Workers' Compensation Commission erred in refusing to consider the June 9, 1994 letter of Richard D. Kolodner, a licensed professional counselor, on the ground that the letter does not qualify as a "medical report" under the Workers' Compensation Act ("the Act"). 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.
In holding that Kolodner's opinion was not persuasive on the issue of disability, the commission found as follows:
The claimant principally relies on a letter of June 9, 1994, from . . . Kolodner, licensed professional counselor. However, this cannot be considered as a medical report. Neff v. Houff Transfer, Inc., VWC File No. 165-33-84 (January 31, 1995). Kolodner is not a physician, and it does not appear that he has any type of professional graduate degree. Neither do we find any evidence that his opinion has been incorporated by any treating physician.
The commission's construction of the Act is entitled to great weight on appeal. City of Waynesboro v. Harter, 1 Va. App. 265, 269, 337 S.E.2d 901, 903 (1985).
The term "medical report" is not defined in Code Sec. 65.2-603 to include reports of licensed professional counselors. If the general assembly intended that the reports of licensed professional counselors be considered as medical reports it could have specifically provided for such. It did so for chiropractor's treatment reports. See Code Sec. 65.2-603(D). "While the . . . Act is to be liberally construed for the employee's benefit, that policy does not authorize the amendment, alteration or extension of its provisions beyond its obvious meaning." Gajan v. Bradlick Co., Inc., 4 Va. App. 213, 217, 355 S.E.2d 899, 902 (1987).
Based upon the commission's interpretation of Code Sec. 65.2-603, we cannot find as a matter of law that the commission erred in refusing to consider the letter of Kolodner, a licensed professional counselor, as a "medical report" under Code Sec. 65.2-603.
For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.