Drug Transport, Inc. and New Hampshire Insurance Company v. McCarter Williams

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Alston, Decker and Senior Judge Coleman* DRUG TRANSPORT, INC. AND NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Record No. 1790-14-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION** PER CURIAM FEBRUARY 18, 2015 McCARTER WILLIAMS FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (S. Vernon Priddy III; Andrew H.D. Wilson; Two Rivers Law Group, P.C., on briefs), for appellants. (Jamie L. Karek; Commonwealth Law Group, on brief), for appellee. Drug Transport, Inc. and New Hampshire Insurance Company (collectively employer) appeal the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission (commission) awarding McCarter Williams (claimant) medical benefits for a neck injury. On appeal, employer argues that the commission erred when it (1) reversed a deputy commissioner’s holding that claimant’s claim for treatment of his neck injury was barred by res judicata and in remanding the matter to the deputy commissioner for further consideration; and (2) declined to reconsider its earlier ruling that the doctrine of res judicata did not bar recovery for claimant’s neck injury. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinions and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its opinions. See Williams v. Drug Transp. Inc., JCN VA00000553371 (Jan. 16, 2014 and Aug. 28, 2014). We dispense with * Judge Coleman took part in the consideration of this case prior to the effective date of his retirement as senior judge on January 31, 2015. ** Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 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.