Opinion
Record No. 0761-92-4
November 24, 1992
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION.
(Rokaya M. Tageldin, pro se, on briefs).
(Joseph C. Veith, III; Montedonico, Hamilton Altman, on brief), for appellees.
Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick.
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated publication.
Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission. Rule 5A:27.
Rokaya M. Tageldin contends that the commission erred (1) in denying her recovery of the cost of a home health aide and domestic assistance; and (2) in not considering fourteen additional allegations stated in Tageldin's October 1, 1990 application for hearing.
On appellate review, we will construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below. R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990), and uphold findings of fact made by the commission, if supported by credible evidence. James v. Capitol Steel Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 489 (1989). Unless we can say as a matter of law that Tageldin's evidence was sufficient to sustain her burden of proof, then the commission's finding is binding upon us. Tomko v. Michael's Plastering Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1970).
Code § 65.2-603 (formerly Code § 65.1-88) provides that, "As long as necessary after an accident the employer shall furnish or cause to be furnished, free of charge to the injured employee, a physician . . . and such other necessary medical attention." (Emphasis added.) In Warren Trucking Co. v. Chandler, 221 Va. 1108, 277 S.E.2d 488 (1981), the Supreme Court set forth the standards to be applied in determining what constitutes "other necessary medical attention." One of those standards requires that the care rendered "must be of the type usually rendered only by trained attendants and beyond the scope of normal household duties. . . ." Id. at 1116, 277 S.E.2d at 493.
The services requested by Tageldin before the commission were essentially the same type of services requested in Warren Trucking. There, the Supreme Court denied recovery. Tageldin testified that she needed assistance with household chores and bathing. The medical records reflect requests for domestic help with housework and a home health aide to assist with bathing. These services are not considered "other necessary medical attention" under statute and case law. See id. at 1118, 277 S.E.2d at 494. Dr. Manfreds Munters' prescription for a practical nurse, dated May 17, 1991, without further elaboration, is insufficient to determine whether such services constitute "other necessary medical attention." Furthermore, on the same date, Dr. Munters wrote a letter to defense counsel stating that Tageldin needed only domestic assistance.
Accordingly, we cannot say that the commission erred, as a matter of law, in denying Tageldin recovery of the cost of the home health aide and domestic assistance. The commission's decision was supported by credible evidence and was controlled by the Supreme Court's decision in Warren Trucking.
With respect to Tageldin's contention that the commission erred in not considering the numerous other allegations raised in her October 1, 1990 application for hearing, we find that the commission did not err in doing so. A review of Tageldin's allegations confirms that they were either irrelevant and/or moot at the time of the hearing; or they did not affect Tageldin's right to compensation; or they were beyond the statutory authority of the commission. "Generally, the Commission's jurisdiction is limited to those issues which are directly or necessarily related to the right of an employee to compensation for a work-related injury." Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Tucker, 3 Va. App. 116, 120, 348 S.E.2d 416, 418-19 (1986) (citations omitted).
For the reasons stated, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.