Multiple Attempts to Obtain Workers’ Additional Compensation Benefits Fails For Failure to Follow Rules

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gQ2QfMRT and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gkwctdx4 and at https://lnkd.in/gDjcS_UZ and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4400 posts.

IT DOES NOT PAY TO ANNOY A COURT OF APPEAL

In Marty D. Foust v. Lawrence Brothers, Inc. And American Interstate Insurance Company, No. 1146-21-3, Court of Appeals of Virginia (December 13, 2022) Marty D. Foust challenged a September 22, 2021 opinion of the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission denying his request for certain medical and disability benefits.

BACKGROUND

On appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission, a deputy commissioner held that: Foust was incapable of returning to his pre-injury employment, Dr. Karvelas was not an authorized treating physician, and Foust’s May 2012 stroke was not a compensable consequence of his work-related injury.

In May 2016, December 5, 2016, February 21, 2017, and April 26, 2017 Foust sought additional hearings asserting that he suffered “strokes” and “mini-strokes” that were compensable consequences of his work-related injury.

Again a deputy commissioner found that Foust’s claims were invalid except his request for panels of neurologists and pain management physicians, and granted his request for medical treatment of his symptomatic scar neuroma.

Foust asserted that his accident was “responsible for everything that is wrong with him because nothing was wrong with him before he got hurt.” The Commission concluded that was insufficient as a matter of law.

ANALYSIS

Where a party fails to develop an argument in support of his or her contention or merely constructs a skeletal argument, the issue is waived. Foust’s argument is filled with factual assertions and allegations, some of which are unsupported by the record and left the Court without a legal prism through which to view his alleged errors.
The Court of Appeal found Foust’s failure to comply with the court’s rules in this case significant, his arguments were waived and the order was affirmed.

ZALMA OPINION

Every litigant has the right to appeal the decision of a court or a Workers’ Compensation Board. However, in doing so the person appealing must actually comply with the rules of the Court of Appeals, make claims that are compensable, and accept the fact that when an appellate court rules against the litigant he has no right to try again using ridiculous claims like that the insurer and employer are attempting to murder him.

(c) 2022 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf.

Go to substack at https://lnkd.in/gEEnV7Dd Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://lnkd.in/gEEnV7Dd

Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gWVSBde