From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Murphy v. Frank IX Sons, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Virginia
May 23, 1995
Record No. 2314-94-2 (Va. Ct. App. May. 23, 1995)

Opinion

Record No. 2314-94-2

Decided: May 23, 1995

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION

Affirmed.

(Edmund R. Michie; Michie, Hamlett, Lowry, Rasmussen Tweel, on briefs), for appellant.

(R. Ferrell Newman; Glenn S. Phelps; Thompson, Smithers, Newman Wade, on brief), for appellees.

Present: Judges Koontz, Bray and Senior Judge Hodges


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to Code Sec. 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.


Alonzo E. Murphy contends that the Workers' Compensation Commission erred in finding that (1) it could not award permanent partial disability benefits because Murphy was entitled to and was receiving temporary total disability benefits under an open award; and (2) Murphy failed to establish entitlement to permanent partial disability benefits because he failed to prove that he had reached maximum medical improvement. 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.

Code Sec. 65.2-503(F) (1) provides that "[c]ompensation awarded pursuant to this section shall be in addition to all other compensation and shall be payable after payments for temporary total incapacity pursuant to Sec. 65.2-500." (Emphasis added.)

The commission denied Murphy an award of permanent partial disability benefits, finding that his case for permanency was premature because he was still receiving temporary total disability benefits under an open award. Based upon the language of Code Sec. 65.2-503(F) (1), we cannot say as a matter of law that the commission erred in finding that Murphy's claim for permanent partial disability was premature. Moreover, pursuant to Code Sec. 65.2-708(A), Murphy has "thirty-six months from the last day for which compensation was paid" for filing a claim payable under Sec. 65.2-503.

Because our holding disposes of this appeal, we will not address the second question presented by Murphy.

For the reasons stated, we affirm the commission's decision.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Murphy v. Frank IX Sons, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Virginia
May 23, 1995
Record No. 2314-94-2 (Va. Ct. App. May. 23, 1995)
Case details for

Murphy v. Frank IX Sons, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ALONZO E. MURPHY v. FRANK IX SONS, INC. and LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE…

Court:Court of Appeals of Virginia

Date published: May 23, 1995

Citations

Record No. 2314-94-2 (Va. Ct. App. May. 23, 1995)