Opinion
Record No. 1497-16-4
02-21-2017
MARTA RIVAS v. MOM'S APPLE PIE COMPANY AND TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY
(Thomas F. Hennessy; Virginia Employment and Family Law Office, on brief), for appellant. (Andrew H.D. Wilson; Stephen A. Marshall; Two Rivers Law Group, P.C., on brief), for appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Present: Judges Decker, Malveaux and Senior Judge Annunziata MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Thomas F. Hennessy; Virginia Employment and Family Law Office, on brief), for appellant. (Andrew H.D. Wilson; Stephen A. Marshall; Two Rivers Law Group, P.C., on brief), for appellees.
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
Marta Rivas ("claimant") appeals a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission ("the Commission") finding that she committed a willful breach of a workplace safety rule. We have reviewed the record and the Commission's opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the Commission in its final opinion. See Rivas v. Mom's Apple Pie Co., JCN VA00001074330 (Aug. 12, 2016). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.
While claimant argues that the Commission erred by applying a negligence standard in assessing whether her violation of a workplace safety rule precluded the recovery of benefits, she failed to raise this argument below and therefore has not preserved it for appeal. See Rule 5A:18. The language from the Commission's opinion which claimant contends reflected application of a negligence standard was a direct quote from the deputy commissioner's opinion. Claimant did not request review of the deputy commissioner's opinion on this basis and did not object to the legal standard applied by the Commission or file a motion to reconsider or a motion for rehearing after the Commission rendered its decision. See Williams v. Gloucester Sheriff's Dep't, 266 Va. 409, 411, 587 S.E.2d 546, 548 (2003) ("the requirement that a litigant file a motion for rehearing or reconsideration to preserve an issue for appeal . . . is not a new requirement"); Hodnett v. Stanco Masonry, Inc., 58 Va. App. 244, 253, 708 S.E.2d 429, 434 (2011) (refusing to consider an issue on appeal when claimant did not file a motion to reconsider). --------
Affirmed.