Opinion
Record No. 1857-93-3
Decided: May 10, 1994
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
Affirmed.
Monica L. Taylor (Dale W. Webb; Melissa Warner Scoggins; Gentry, Locke, Rakes Moore on briefs), for appellants.
Deborah W. Dobbins (Gilmer, Sadler, Ingram, Sutherland Hutton, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Barrow, Coleman and Koontz
Pursuant to Code Sec. 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
In this appeal, credible evidence supports the commission's determination that the employer was estopped from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense and that the employee's accident caused her disability. Accordingly, we affirm.
EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL
An employer is estopped from invoking the statute of limitations if it makes representations that induce the employee to refrain from filing a claim with the commission. Cibula v. Allied Fibers Plastics, 14 Va. App. 319, 324-25, 416 S.E.2d 708, 711 (1992), aff'd, 245 Va. 337, 428 S.E.2d 905 (1993). The employee must present "clear, precise and unequivocal" evidence of a representation, reliance, change of position, and detriment to establish equitable estoppel. Id. at 325, 416 S.E.2d at 711.
Credible evidence supports the commission's finding that the employer's representations induced the employee to refrain from filing her claim. The employer twice informed the employee that workers' compensation did not apply to her. When the employee inquired about workers' compensation, the employer's representative told her that "[w]orkers' comp doesn't have anything to do with you now . . . we will take care of your medical bills." When the employee inquired again, she was told substantially the same thing. She did not receive a "blue letter" or pamphlet, nor did she learn of the two-year statute of limitations until she consulted an attorney after receiving notice of unpaid medical bills. This evidence supported the commission's finding that the employer's representations induced her not to file a claim.
CAUSATION
Causation is an essential element to prove in order to receive compensation for an injury by accident. Ratliff v. Rocco Farm Foods, ___, Va. App. ___, ___, 429 S.E.2d 39, 42 (1993). "To establish by a preponderance of the evidence a causal connection between the incident and the claimed disability the 'proof must go beyond conjecture.' " Id. at ___, 429 S.E.2d at 41.
Credible medical evidence supports the commission's finding that the employee's condition was caused by her accident. Both Dr. Hagan and Dr. Torres indicated in their notes and on their attending physician's reports that the employee's condition was caused by her accident. Dr. Hooper, the surgeon, stated in his operative notes that the employee "sustained an on-the-job injury to her left elbow which subsequently went on to develop resistant lateral epicondylitis." In addition, the company doctor's notes indicate that Dr. Hagan believed that the lateral epicondylitis developed "secondary to the thumb injury." Although the company doctor stated that "the mechanism by which such a secondary orthopedic problem develops is not known," he did not contradict Hagan's assessment.
The commission's finding of causation was supported by credible evidence "beyond conjecture." Therefore, we affirm the commission's determination.
Affirmed.