Rebecca N. Whittington v. Virginia Retirement System
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Elder, Alston and Senior Judge Coleman REBECCA N. WHITTINGTON v. Record No. 0335-13-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION* PER CURIAM JULY 16, 2013 VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYSTEM FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY David H. Beck, Judge (John Barry Donohue, Jr., on briefs), for appellant. (Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General; Brian J. Goodman, Legal Affairs & Compliance Coordinator, on brief), for appellee. Rebecca N. Whittington appeals a decision of the Circuit Court of Spotsylvania County affirming the final case decision of the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) denying her claim for disability retirement benefits. On appeal, Whittington contends the circuit court erred in: (1) affirming the decision of VRS because such denial was not supported by substantial evidence or by substantial evidence on the whole record; (2) denying her request to reverse the decision of VRS denying her application for disability retirement benefits because such denial was not supported by substantial evidence or by substantial evidence on the whole record; and (3) denying her application for reasonable costs and attorney s fees because she should have prevailed on her claim for disability retirement benefits. We have reviewed the record, VRS s final case decision, and the final decision of the circuit court, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons fully set forth by the circuit court in its final order incorporating its bench ruling of January 16, 2013. See Whittington v. Virginia Retirement System, Case No. CL11-1330 (Jan. 29, 2013). We * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 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.
