Edyn Osley Guerra v. Hawk, Inc. and WCAMC Contractors Group Self Insurance Association

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Frank, McClanahan and Senior Judge Willis EDYN OSLEY GUERRA v. Record No. 0497-07-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION* PER CURIAM JULY 24, 2007 HAWK, INC. AND WCAMC CONTRACTORS GROUP SELF INSURANCE ASSOCIATION FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Arturo H. Hernandez, on brief), for appellant. (Michael P. Del Bueno; Brandon R. Jordan; Whitt & Del Bueno, PC, on brief), for appellees. Edyn Osley Guerra (claimant) appeals a decision of the Workers Compensation Commission denying his claim for permanent partial disability ( PPD ) benefits.1 Claimant argues the commission abused its discretion in disregarding the treating physician s opinion. We have reviewed the record and the commission s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Guerra v. Hawk, Inc., VWC File No. 220-50-50 (Feb. 21, 2007). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented * 1 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. The commission noted in its opinion that claimant s Written Statement on review addressed only the issue of PPD benefits and, therefore, limited its review to that issue. While claimant raises the question on appeal of whether the commission abused its discretion in allowing employer to conduct and file an Independent Medical Examination, he did not obtain any ruling on that question from the full commission on review. Accordingly, there is nothing for us to review, and we will not consider that question for the first time on appeal. See Green v. Warwick Plumbing & Heating Corp., 5 Va. App. 409, 413, 364 S.E.2d 4, 6 (1988); Rule 5A:18. 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.