Phyllis A. Filoso v. Prince William County School Board

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Benton, Humphreys and Senior Judge Overton PHYLLIS A. FILOSO v. Record No. 2587-04-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION* PER CURIAM MARCH 15, 2005 PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Phyllis A. Filoso, pro se, on briefs). (Thomas C. Palmer, Jr.; Brault Palmer Grove White & Steinhilber LLP, on brief), for appellee. Phyllis A. Filoso appeals a decision of the Workers Compensation Commission denying her claim for temporary total disability benefits and medical benefits. The commission ruled that her claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The commission also noted that Filoso appealed the denial of her claim in VWC File No. 211-37-67, but that she did not appeal the denials of her two claims in VWC File Nos. 208-26-19 and 208-77-64. We have reviewed the record and the commission s opinion, and we hold that the record establishes no reversible error. Accordingly, for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion, we affirm the commission s ruling that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. See Filoso v. Prince William (County of) School Board, VWC File Nos. 208-26-19, 208-77-64, 211-37-67 (Oct. 5, 2004). 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. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. Filoso filed a Motion to Amend Designation of Appendix and a Motion for Extension of Time and Motion for Sanctions. The School Board filed an Appellee s Opposition to Appellant s Motion to Amend Appendix and Motion for Extension of Time and a Motion to Dismiss. Upon consideration of these motions and pleadings, we deny the motions. 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.