Viking Contracting, Inc. and Liberty Insurance Corporation v. Maria Elena Aliaga
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Kelsey, Beales and Senior Judge Clements VIKING CONTRACTING, INC. AND LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION v. Record No. 1701-12-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM JANUARY 8, 2013 MARIA ELENA ALIAGA FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Alan D. Sundburg; Friedlander Misler, PLLC, on brief), for appellants. (Andrew S. Kasmer, on brief), for appellee. Viking Contracting, Inc. and Liberty Insurance Corporation (employer) appeal a decision of the Workers Compensation Commission finding that Maria E. Aliaga (claimant) was totally disabled and had no duty to market her residual work capacity. 1 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 Aliaga v. Viking Contracting, Inc., JCN VA000-0015-5292 (Aug. 24, 2012). We dispense with oral argument and summarily * 1 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. Claimant contends that the record fails to set forth when employer filed its notice of appeal. Although the notice of appeal was not included in the joint appendix, the record shows that employer filed a notice of appeal with the commission on September 25, 2012, sent via certified mail on September 21, 2012. Thus, the notice was timely filed. Claimant also contends that employer failed to preserve the marketing issue before the full commission. The deputy commissioner found that claimant was totally disabled, therefore, she was under no obligation to market her residual ability. On July 13, 2011, employer filed a request for review before the full commission. In the request for review, employer claimed error with the finding that claimant had no duty to market her residual capacity. The full commission found that a questionnaire signed by claimant s treating physician was sufficient to support claimant s ongoing disability. Employer preserved the issue. 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.
