Lisa C. Hammons, Administratrix, etc. v. Pilgrams Pride Corporation, et al.

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Benton, Humphreys and Senior Judge Overton LISA C. HAMMONS, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY BRIAN HAMMONS, DECEASED v. Record No. 0974-04-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION* PER CURIAM SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 PILGRIMS PRIDE CORPORATION AND PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Roger A. Ritchie, Sr.; Ritchie Law Firm, P.L.C., on briefs), for appellant. (Thomas E. Ullrich; Amy S. Gurgle; Wharton, Aldhizer & Weaver, PLC, on brief), for appellees. Lisa C. Hammons, Administratrix of the Estate of Jeffrey Brian Hammons, Deceased, appeals a decision of the Workers Compensation Commission denying her claim for an award of medical and death benefits. Hammons contends the commission erred in ruling (1) that the preponderance of evidence did not prove an insect sting sustained by Jeffrey Brian Hammons in 2001 was the cause of the sensitization which resulted in his death from an insect sting on July 22, 2002, and (2) that his death, which was due to anaphylactic shock, was not the result of a 2001 injury which was aggravated by the 2002 insect sting. We have reviewed the record and the commission s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, for the reasons stated by the commission in its opinion, we affirm the denial of medical and death benefits. See Jeffrey Brian Hammons (Deceased), Lisa C. Hammons, Administratrix of the Estate of Jeffrey Brian Hammons, Deceased v. Pilgrims Pride Corporation, VWC File No. 211-89-67 (April 6, 2004). * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. Affirmed. - 2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.