Masonite Holdings, Inc. and Safety National Casualty Company appealed a Workers’ Compensation Commission decision that granted continuing disability benefits to Connie Lee Cubbage. The appellants contended that the commission erred by: (1) not finding Cubbage’s claim barred by the statute of limitations; (2) determining that Cubbage sustained a compensable new injury; (3) affirming the deputy commissioner’s finding of a compensable change in condition; and (4) linking ongoing medical needs and disability to Cubbage’s work-related accident. The Court of Appeals affirmed the commission's decision, which was based on evidence favoring Cubbage.
Cubbage, after slipping on ice during work on January 19, 2004, experienced worsening back pain that led to medical consultations, including with neurosurgeon Dr. James Chadduck, who diagnosed cervical and lumbosacral spondylosis. Cubbage initially filed for benefits on May 18, 2004, claiming injuries to his neck and back, but the insurance carrier’s memorandum only acknowledged a scalp laceration and cervical strain. After resuming work, Cubbage's back pain escalated, prompting him to seek further medical attention in December 2005. Following a diagnosis of additional lower back injuries, Cubbage, now represented by counsel, formally requested temporary disability benefits and submitted further medical documentation to the commission.
Cubbage sent Dr. Chadduck’s December 5, 2005 report to the commission, requesting confirmation of Temporary Total Disability benefits for the Claimant starting December 6, 2005. Neither Masonite nor the commission responded. On January 17, 2006, Cubbage requested expedited consideration of his claim as a motion for a change in condition. A commission claims examiner replied on January 27, 2006, clarifying that Cubbage's December letter would be treated as a claim.
During a September 18, 2006 hearing, there was uncertainty regarding whether Cubbage's December letter represented a new injury claim or a change in condition from prior injuries. Appellants contended that Cubbage's back pain was not compensable due to a two-year statute of limitations. The deputy commissioner determined that the December 12 letter constituted a valid claim and was not barred by the statute of limitations since it was filed before January 19, 2006. Upon reviewing the case, the deputy commissioner concluded that Cubbage's lower back injury was causally linked to his original workplace injury, awarding him temporary total disability benefits starting December 5, 2005.
The full commission affirmed the deputy commissioner's findings, agreeing that Cubbage and his counsel had timely notified the insurer of the low back injury stemming from a fall on January 19, 2004, and that Dr. Chadduck had recommended he stop working for therapy on December 5, 2005. The commission concluded that the low back injury constituted a new injury and that the insurer was adequately notified of this claim. The appellants appealed the commission’s decision. The court noted that the Workers’ Compensation Act is meant to be liberally construed to support compensation for employees injured on the job.
A de novo review of legal issues from the commission is conducted, giving substantial weight to the commission’s interpretation of the Workers’ Compensation Act and deferring to its factual findings supported by credible evidence. The appellants pose two primary questions on appeal. Firstly, they claim the commission erred in affirming the Deputy Commissioner’s finding of a compensable change in condition; however, the commission clarified that it found the claim to be for a new injury, not a change in condition, thus no reversal is warranted. Secondly, the appellants contest the commission's determination that Cubbage filed a valid and timely claim for his lower back injury, which the commission upheld based on credible evidence.
The appellants initially presented four questions but waived two due to a lack of legal argument in their brief, violating Rule 5A:20(e), which necessitates an argument and authorities for each question. Unsupported assertions of error do not warrant appellate review. They also claimed error regarding the timeliness of Cubbage’s change-in-condition application, yet the commission's finding that the claim was for a new injury negates this argument. The notice required by the Act is crucial as it informs the employer and insurance carrier of the accident and initiates the compensation process. While the Act mandates filing a claim, it does not define what constitutes a claim; a letter can suffice if it identifies the employer, accident date and location, and injuries, adequately notifying the commission of the employee's claim.
The claimant's information may be provided across multiple documents, as long as they collectively meet the requirements. The commission found credible evidence supporting that Cubbage's December 12 letter was a valid claim for his lower back injury. This letter included Dr. Chadduck’s December 5, 2005 report, which diagnosed the injury and recommended a two-month leave from work. Cubbage requested that this report be added to his prior medical records and asked the Carrier’s representative to confirm his eligibility for Temporary Total Disability benefits starting December 6, 2005. Together, the report and Cubbage’s benefit request substantiate the commission's determination of a valid claim. Since Cubbage filed his claim on December 12, 2005, within two years of his January 19, 2004 workplace accident, the statute of limitations does not apply. The record supports the commission's finding of a valid claim filed within the appropriate timeframe, leading to the affirmation of the commission’s decision.
