Opinion
Record No. 2093-91-1
December 1, 1992
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION.
Charles F. Midkiff (Michael P. O'Bresly; Midkiff Hiner, on briefs), for appellants.
Robert J. Macbeth, Jr. (Rutter Montagna, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Baker, Bray and Fitzpatrick.
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia.
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated publication.
Howmet Turbine Components Corporation and Pacific Employers Insurance Company, its workers' compensation carrier (jointly referred to herein as employer) appeal from an adverse decision of the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission (commission) which approved a deputy commissioner's finding that employer was responsible for medical expenses incurred by Thomas Land (claimant) for treatment of a work-related injury. In this appeal, employer asserts that the commission erred when it determined that Dr. Cary G. Suter was an authorized treating physician; erred in finding that claimant was properly referred to and properly accepted treatment provided by Dr. Edward R. Isaacs; and erred in finding that Dr. Richard B. McAdam discharged claimant.
Upon review of the evidence presented to the deputy commissioner, the commission found "that the employer authorized the evaluation by Dr. Suter and consequently his referral to Dr. Isaacs." In addition, the commission found that the initial treating physician, Dr. McAdam, had discharged claimant "when there was some need for continuing medical treatment," and that Dr. Isaacs "treated claimant with some success."
Where the commission's findings as to questions of fact are based on credible evidence, they are conclusive and binding on this Court. Code § 65.2-706(A) (formerly Code § 65.1-98);Sky Chefs, Inc. v. Rogers, 222 Va. 800, 805, 284 S.E.2d 605, 607 (1981); Fairfax Hospital v. DeLaFleur, 221 Va. 406, 410, 270 S.E.2d 720, 722 (1980). The fact that the record may contain contrary evidence is of no consequence if credible evidence supports the commission's findings. Russell Loungewear v. Gray, 2 Va. App. 90, 95, 341 S.E.2d 824, 826 (1986). In determining whether credible evidence supports the commission's findings, we are required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the commission's holding. Crisp v. Brown's Tysons Corner Dodge, Inc., 1 Va. App. 503, 504, 339 S.E.2d 916, 916 (1986).
Employer argues that no credible evidence supports the decision of the commission and, therefore, asserts that the issues are issues of law that must be resolved in its favor. We disagree and conclude that credible evidence in the record supports the commission's findings.
Claimant suffered a compensable job-related lower back injury on May 4, 1987. His injuries were initially treated by Dr. Trayham, an orthopaedist. On July 7, 1987, Dr. Trayham referred claimant to Dr. McAdam, a neurosurgeon. Thereafter, on August 4, 1987, Dr. Trayham advised employer that he could no longer offer claimant treatment "from an orthopaedic standpoint," and further advised that "an outside independent evaluation would be welcomed." In the fall of 1987, claimant, on his own initiative, consulted Dr. Robert Solomon, a neurologist. Dr. Solomon referred claimant to Dr. Suter, a neurologist at the Medical College of Virginia. On November 11, 1987, Dr. Suter examined and evaluated claimant and in a formal report forwarded his evaluation to Dr. Trayham. Because of muscle spasm involvement, Dr. Suter recommended that claimant probably should see Dr. Isaacs for possible treatment.
No claim is made for payment due Dr. Solomon and no report was filed by him.
Asserting Dr. Trayham to be the "treating physician," employer advised the commission that it would not be responsible for charges made other than those of Dr. Trayham or the doctors to whom he may have referred claimant for treatment. On December 3, 1987, Dr. Suter advised Dr. Trayham that he believed back surgery may be necessary as further treatment for claimant's injury. Claimant was again seen by Dr. Suter on March 27, 1989. Dr. Suter recommended that claimant see Dr. Isaacs who, on June 7, 1990, evaluated claimant. On June 11, 1990, Dr. McAdam evaluated claimant and advised that he could return to work with restrictions. On June 13, 1990, claimant was advised by employer that it would not pay for services rendered by unauthorized physicians. Employer further described Dr. McAdam as the authorized "treating neurologist" and declared that Dr. McAdam had released claimant for return to work with restrictions as of June 11, 1990. After claimant's last steroid injection in August 1990, Dr. McAdam told him, "that was it."
The record does not disclose a response to that recommendation.
Claimant requested of Belinda Trull, employer's claims representative, permission to obtain a further opinion from Dr. Suter. Trull told claimant that she could not authorize his seeing Dr. Suter and she would need to seek someone else's approval before she could give an authorization to see Dr. Suter. Although Trull never relayed specific permission for claimant to see Dr. Suter, thereafter employer paid all his charges. None of Dr. Isaacs' bills were paid by employer.
When employer refused to make further compensation payments, on August 3, 1990 claimant sought an award requiring employer to pay recurrent disability and for the medical services rendered by Dr. Isaacs. Employer defended the claim on the ground that Dr. Isaacs was not an authorized treating physician.
If reasonable inferences can be drawn from the evidence to support the commission's findings, they will not be disturbed on appeal, even though there is evidence in the record to support contrary findings of fact. Caskey v. Dan River Mills, Inc., 225 Va. 405, 411, 302 S.E.2d 507, 510-11 (1983). From the evidence contained in this record, we conclude that the commission reasonably inferred that Dr. Trayham could offer no further orthopaedic treatment for claimant, and that Dr. McAdam had discharged claimant for return to his work. We further find that the commission reasonably inferred that when employer paid for Dr. Suter's services following claimant's request for permission to see him, that such payment affirmed authorization of claimant's request, and that referrals by Dr. Suter related to claimant's treatment for his work-related injury were employer's responsibility. Thus, we find that the commission's decision is based on credible evidence.
Because an employer must furnish medical care rendered to an employee for an injury sustained in a work-related accident as long as necessary after the accident, Code § 65.2-603(A)(1) (formerly Code § 65.1-88), including referrals made by the authorized physician, and because the treatment provided by Dr. Isaacs was necessary and successful, we affirm the decision of the commission.
Affirmed.