Opinion
Record No. 2479-92-2
July 27, 1993
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION.
(Gary W. Kendall; Michie, Hamlett, Lowry, Rasmussen Tweel, on brief), for appellant.
(William B. Judkins; Midkiff Hiner, on brief), for appellees.
Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis.
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
Andrew Malion Galyean sustained a compensable burn injury to both of his feet in 1988 while working for Southeastern Adhesives Company, Inc., and continues to be disabled. The commission denied Galyean's application to require Southeastern to pay for certain handicap and orthopedic aids. Galyean contends that the commission erred in finding that Code § 65.2-603 does not require Southeastern to pay for (1) a handicapped bathroom addition onto his home, and (2) a motorized scooter. Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision. See Rule 5A:27.
I.
Code § 65.2-603 specifically provides that:
[U]pon determination by the treating physician and the Commission that the same is medically necessary, the Commission may require that the employer furnish and maintain wheelchairs, bedside lifts, adjustable beds, and modification of the employee's principal home consisting of ramps, handrails, or any appliances prescribed by the treating physician and doorway alterations.
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).
In denying Galyean's claim for the cost of an addition to his house to contain a handicapped bathroom, the commission stated:
The claimant's existing bathroom is approximately eight feet square. Modifications to accommodate his current handicap apparently would be limited to handrails around the bathtub, a washbasin to accommodate his wheelchair, and an appropriate commode. The claimant contends that such modifications are not practical given the size of the existing bathroom. However, we find no statutory authority to require the employer to pay for the cost of building an addition to the claimant's house. Code § 65.2-603 contemplates only modifications to the claimant's existing residence. We do not understand the term "modification" to encompass additions to the claimant's principal residence.
The commission interprets the statute to contain a limitation upon the types of modifications that are allowable. The plain, unambiguous language of Code § 65.2-603 delineates a class of improvements that constitutes modifications. The commission has not interpreted the statute to allow it to order an entire room to be added onto Galyean's residence. Upon review of the plain language of the statute, we cannot say as a matter of law that the commission erred in its interpretation.
II.
The commission found that the term "wheelchair" as used in Code § 65.2-603 does not include a motorized scooter. In doing so, the commission recognized that, although the purpose of both pieces of equipment is the same, the two are clearly different. We do not decide whether the commission erred in its interpretation of this provision because we agree with Southeastern's contention that Galyean failed to present evidence that the scooter was medically necessary, as required by Code § 65.2-603. Dr. Herbert Baker's opinion that the motorized scooter would be "very helpful" for Galyean to use in public places does not establish a medical necessity.
For the reasons stated, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.