City of Roanoke v Ronald F. Renick
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Fitzpatrick, Overton and Senior Judge Hodges Argued at Salem, Virginia CITY OF ROANOKE v. MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON JULY 2, 1996 Record No. 2643-95-3 RONALD F. RENICK FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney (Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney, on briefs), for appellant. Mary L. Poletti (Brumberg, Mackey & Wall, P.L.C., on brief), for appellee. The Workers' Compensation Commission awarded benefits to the claimant, Ronald F. Renick, for his condition of esophageal motility disorder resulting from extreme stress in his employment. Renick's employer appeals, challenging both the classification of his condition as an occupational disease and the causal link to his employment. The parties are fully conversant with the record to this case, and a recitation of the facts is unnecessary to this memorandum opinion. Renick's condition was established as a disease. All medical records as well as the medical literature demonstrate that the treating doctors as well as the medical community believe this to be a disease. * This classification is a medical Pursuant to Code ยง 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication. issue to be decided by the trier of fact based on evidence at the hearing. Knott v. Blue Bell, Inc., 7 Va. App. 335, 338, 373 S.E.2d 481, 483 (1988). Renick's employment caused the stress that triggered his condition. No other source of stress was noted or argued by either doctors or counsel. The treating specialists ruled out other causes and came to the conclusion that stress caused his condition. finding." "[A] determination of causation is a factual Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Musick, 7 Va. App. 684, 688, 376 S.E.2d 814, 817 (1989). We find that credible evidence supports the commission's findings, and we will not disturb them on appeal. of the commission is affirmed. Affirmed. - 2 - The decision
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.
