Robert L. Brown, Sr. v. Steven W. Jett, General Con
State Civil Lawsuit Virginia Appellate Court, Case No. 2051982

Tags No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
Request Update Request UpdateSpaceE-Mail Alert Get E-Mail Alerts

  Text Tab Overlap Citations (0) Tab Overlap Cited By (6) Right End
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Elder, Bumgardner and Lemons ROBERT L. BROWN, SR.
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 2051-98-2 PER CURIAM
FEBRUARY 16, 1999
STEVEN W. JETT GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Robert L. Flax; Flax, Billy & Stout, on
briefs), for appellant.
(Donna White Kearney; Taylor & Walker, on
brief), for appellees.

Robert L. Brown, Sr. ("claimant") contends that the Workers' Compensation Commission ("commission") abused its discretion in denying his request for a change in treating physicians from Dr. E. Claiborne Irby, Jr. 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. See Rule 5A:27.

On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below. See R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). Whether a treating physician has released or abandoned his patient generally is determined by the express intent of the physician. In some cases, the total circumstances must be

*

Pursuant to Code § 17-1.413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication. analyzed in order to determine whether discharge, release, or abandonment of the patient was intended. This determination is a factual one which must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. See Jensen Press v. Ale, 1 Va. App. 153, 157, 336 S.E.2d 522, 524 (1985).

In denying claimant's request for a change in treating physicians, the commission held that Dr. Irby's treatment and management of claimant's chronic condition was not inadequate, ineffective, unconventional, or excessive, and that it did not conflict with applicable standards of care. In so ruling, the commission found as follows:
Dr. Irby stands ready to provide conservative
treatment for any aggravations to claimant's
condition and has provided conservative
treatment for claimant's chronic back
condition. . . . Surgery is not a viable
option for the claimant, and all the
physicians indicate the claimant's condition
is chronic and no further diagnostic studies
are needed. . . .
Claimant complains that his back
condition is exacerbated by the long trips to
Dr. Irby's office, a trip that Dr. Irby has
authorized by approving the claimant to drive
for an hour and then rest and stretch for
brief periods. While we acknowledge that the
trips may not be pain free, unfortunately
given the chronic nature of claimant's
condition, claimant will probably not be free
of pain. Additionally, there is no evidence
that the trips are medically detrimental to
the claimant.
Dr. Irby is a specialist in orthopedics
and was requested by the claimant. The
ninety-three mile distance to his office,
while not short, is not unreasonable given
the need for claimant to be monitored and
treated for a chronic condition. We find no
merit in claimant's contention that setting
up appointments with Dr. Irby is unduly
[End Page 2]
difficult. The record reveals that Dr.
Irby's office has taken care to reschedule
missed appointments in a timely fashion.
Finally, there is nothing in the record to
justify the assertion that claimant is in
need of narcotics for effective pain control.

The commission's factual findings are amply supported by the medical records and, therefore, will not be disturbed on appeal. Because claimant failed to present any clear and convincing evidence of abandonment or inadequate treatment by Dr. Irby, we cannot find as a matter of law that the commission erred in denying claimant's request for a change in treating physicians.

For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision. 1
Affirmed.

1

Appellee filed a "Motion to Exclude Appellant's Reply Brief." We deny that motion.

[End Page 3]

Statistics

This case has been viewed 71 times.

No comments have been added yet. Sign in to post a comment.
Space
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
 
PlainSite
Sign Up
Need Password Help?