COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Frank, McClanahan and Senior Judge Willis
JANICE G. BROWN
Record No. 1971-07-3
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
AUGUST 26, 2008
TJ ENTERPRISES, INC. AND
COMPANION PROPERTY AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Janice G. Brown, pro se, on brief).
(Richard S. Sperbeck; Angela F. Gibbs; Midkiff, Muncie & Ross,
P.C., on brief), for appellee Companion Property and Casualty
No brief for appellee TJ Enterprises, Inc.
Janice G. Brown (claimant) appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation
Commission (1) denying her claim seeking payment for medical treatment by Dr. Glenn Deputy
on the ground that such claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata; (2) denying her claim
seeking payment for medical treatment by Dr. Richard P. Lango on the ground that such
treatment resulted from the unauthorized referral by Dr. Deputy and pertains to the
non-compensable testing for, and symptoms of, multiple sclerosis or a demyelinating disease;
and (3) finding that even, assuming arguendo, the issue of Dr. Deputy’s medical treatment had
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
not already been determined with finality, claimant failed to sustain her burden of proving such
treatment was causally related to her compensable November 1, 2002 injury by accident. 1
Notwithstanding claimant’s failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 5A:20 with respect
to her opening brief, 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 Brown v. TJ Enterprises, Inc., VWC File No. 212-44-54 (July 10, 2007).
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.
The commission declined to address any remaining issues raised by claimant, as the
deputy commissioner denied the claim on issues of causation and the bar of res judicata, and,
therefore, any remaining issues would not change the outcome.