Dominic D. Robinson v. Hampton Redevelopment and Housing Authority, et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Frank, McClanahan and Retired Judge Hodges* DOMINIC D. ROBINSON v. Record No. 0739-08-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM AUGUST 19, 2008 HAMPTON REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY AND VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL GROUP SELF-INSURANCE ASSOCIATION FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Dominic D. Robinson, pro se, on briefs). (Robert A. Rapaport; Kira A. Ligato; Clarke, Dolph, Rapaport, Hull, Brunick & Garriott, P.L.C., on brief), for appellees. Dominic D. Robinson (claimant) appeals a decision of the Workers Compensation Commission finding that (1) the statute of limitations contained in Code §§ 65.2-601 and 65.2-406 bars her claim filed on September 17, 2007, and, therefore, the commission is without jurisdiction to hear it; and (2) claimant failed to prove any legal basis for tolling the statute of limitations contained in either code section. We have reviewed the record and the commission s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Robinson v. Hampton Redevelopment and Housing Authority , VWC File No. 206-31-07 (Mar. 7, 2008). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the * Retired Judge William H. Hodges took part in the consideration of this case by designation pursuant to Code § 17.1-400(D). Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 1 Affirmed. 1 Because we summarily affirm the commission s decision, we deny appellees motions to dismiss filed on May 8, 2008 and May 20, 2008. In addition, we deny claimant s motions under Code § 8.01-428, seeking an award of one billion dollars. We note that in rendering our decision, we did not consider any evidence that was not properly before the commission when it rendered its decision. -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.