Gregory Daughtry v. Boar's Head Provisions Company, Inc. and American Zurich Insurance Company

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Humphreys, O’Brien and Senior Judge Bumgardner GREGORY DAUGHTRY v. Record No. 0278-15-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION* PER CURIAM NOVEMBER 24, 2015 BOAR’S HEAD PROVISIONS COMPANY, INC. AND AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Gregory D. Daughtry, pro se, on brief). (Charles F. Midkiff; David A. Obuchowicz; Midkiff, Muncie & Ross, P.C., on brief), for appellees. Gregory Daughtry (hereinafter “claimant”) appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission (hereinafter “the Commission”) finding that he was not entitled to permanent partial disability benefits in connection with a compensable injury by accident on April 23, 2003, while claimant was employed by Boar’s Head Provisions Company, Inc. Claimant raises multiple assignments of error on appeal; however, none of the assignments of error pertain to a ruling by the Commission.1 Because claimant does not assign error to any aspect of the decision from which the appeal arises, we do not consider claimant’s arguments. See Hodnett v. Stanco Masonry, Inc., 58 Va. App. 244, 253, 708 S.E.2d 429, 434 (2011). * 1 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. In assignment of error C, appellant asserts that “[t]he Commission erred and stated in the summary of the evidence” that appellant testified he “did not work at all in 2006.” However, in connection with that assignment of error, appellant cites to the factual summary in the deputy commissioner’s decision rather than any ruling by the Commission. Accordingly, we affirm the Commission’s decision. See Daughtry v. Boars Head Provisions Co., Inc., JCN Claim No. 2151940 (Feb. 2, 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. -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.