Opinion
Record No. 2344-93-4
Decided: May 31, 1994
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
Affirmed.
(William J. Minor, Jr.; Wochok, Robertson Notarius, on brief), for appellants.
(Lawrence J. Pascal; Ashcraft Gerel, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
Pursuant to Code Sec. 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
The sole issue on this appeal is whether the Workers' Compensation Commission erred in finding that certain chiropractic treatment and the resulting expenses incurred by Royce Briley were authorized, and thus, the responsibility of United Rigging and Hauling, Inc. and Travelers Insurance Company (jointly referred to herein as "employer"). 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.
On appellate review, we 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). Factual findings of the commission will be upheld on appeal if supported by credible evidence. James v. Capitol Steel Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1989).
"Whether the employer is responsible for medical expenses . . . depends upon: (1) whether the medical service was causally related to the industrial injury; (2)whether such other medical attention was necessary; and (3) whether the treating physician made a referral of the patient." Volvo White Truck Corp. v. Hedge, 1 Va. App. 195, 199, 336 S.E.2d 903, 906 (1985).
In finding employer responsible for the cost of chiropractic treatment rendered by Terrence McAuliffe, D.C., the commission stated:
[Dr. McAuliffe's] status as a treating physician is established by the record and has never changed. Although there was a lapse in chiropractic treatment from February 23, 1989 to August 4, 1992, this, in itself, did not change Dr. McAuliffe's status as a treating physician. Moreover, the claimant discussed his return to Dr. McAuliffe with the treating neurosurgeon, who concurred in the chiropractic treatment.
Credible evidence in the record supports those findings. The Employer's First Report, dated February 1, 1989, and filed with the commission on December 5, 1989, identified Dr. McAuliffe as the treating physician. In addition, Briley testified that Dr. Greenberg, his treating neurologist, told him that he should continue chiropractic treatment as long as it was helpful in alleviating his pain. Dr. Greenberg's acquiescence in the chiropractic treatment was tantamount to a referral, especially in light of the fact that surgery was not an option for the treatment of Briley's condition. Briley testified that the chiropractic treatment provided him with a measure of pain relief sufficient to enable him to continue working.
Because we conclude that the Employer's First Report and Briley's undisputed testimony constitute credible evidence sufficient to support the commission's finding that Dr. McAuliffe's chiropractic treatment was authorized, we hold that the commission did not err in holding employer responsible for the cost of such treatment. Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.