Inova Loudoun Hospital and Inova Health Systems v. Najat Chemlali Goode

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Alston, Decker and Senior Judge Frank INOVA LOUDOUN HOSPITAL AND INOVA HEALTH SYSTEMS v. Record No. 1612-14-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION* PER CURIAM MARCH 17, 2015 NAJAT CHEMLALI GOODE FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Joshua M. Wulf; David A. Obuchowicz; Midkiff, Muncie & Ross, P.C., on brief), for appellants. (David B. Vermont; Ashcraft & Gerel, LLP, on brief), for appellee. Inova Loudoun Hospital (employer) appeals from an August 4, 2014 order of the Workers’ Compensation Commission affirming a deputy commissioner’s opinion finding that Najat Chemlali Goode (claimant) proved injuries by accident to her neck and upper back, that her medical treatment and disability were causally related to the accident, and that she had ongoing partial work incapacity related to the accident. On appeal, employer contends the commission erred by (1) finding “claimant injured her neck and upper back in the February 26, 2013 accident,” (2) finding “claimant’s medical treatment from March 12, 2013 and thereafter was causally related to the February 26, 2013 accident,” and (3) “presum[ing] that the claimant remained partially disabled after January 28, 2014 . . . .” Upon reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission’s decision. Rule 5A:27. We affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Goode v. Inova Loudoun * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. Hosp., JCN VA00000748079 (Aug. 4, 2014). 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.