Laurence F. Hannan, III v. Thorsen Construction and Accident Fund Insurance Company
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Beales, Russell and Senior Judge Frank LAURENCE F. HANNAN, III v. Record No. 0258-15-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION* PER CURIAM AUGUST 18, 2015 THORSEN CONSTRUCTION AND ACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE COMPANY FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Laurence F. Hannan, III, pro se, on brief). (Brandi R. Howell; Franklin & Prokopik, P.C., on brief), for appellees. Laurence F. Hannan, III, appellant, appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission awarding medical benefits for Dr. Lincoln German’s treatment of appellant’s thoracic spine, denying medical benefits for Dr. German’s treatment of appellant’s right knee, and denying wage loss benefits to appellant. On appeal, appellant contends the commission erred in finding: (1) he did not suffer a disability that was causally related to the compensable occupational injury that occurred on November 16, 2011; (2) he did not establish an awardable disability within the applicable statute of limitations; (3) any disability suffered prior to February 17, 2014 was not causally related to the industrial accident; and (4) he was denied his legal rights under the law. Employer filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the appeal should be dismissed for appellant’s failure to comply with various requirements in the Rules of the Supreme Court related to the filing of the appendix and/or the opening brief of appellant. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. Assuming without deciding that the matter is properly before us,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 Hannan v. Thorsen Construction Co., VWC File No. VA00000542190 (Jan. 21, 2015). 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. 1 Having denied appellant’s appeal on the merits, we do not reach the issues raised by employer’s motion to dismiss. -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.
