AFGD Glass/AFG Industries, Inc., et al. v. Clarence Turner Heath, Jr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Humphreys, Beales and Senior Judge Fitzpatrick AFGD GLASS/AFG INDUSTRIES, INC. AND TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA v. Record No. 1110-07-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION* PER CURIAM OCTOBER 2, 2007 CLARENCE TURNER HEATH, JR. FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Warren H. Britt; Anne C. Byrne; Warren H. Britt, P.C., on brief), for appellants. (Jamie L. Karek; Geoffrey R. McDonald & Associates, P.C., on brief), for appellee. AFGD Glass/AFG Industries, Inc. and its insurer (hereinafter referred to collectively as employer ) appeal a decision of the Workers Compensation Commission finding that Clarence Turner Heath, Jr. (claimant) proved he sustained a traumatic brain injury and that he reasonably marketed his residual work capacity.1 We have reviewed the record and the commission s * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 1 Employer also argues that the commission erred in awarding claimant temporary total disability benefits from June 22, 2005 through June 30, 2005, a period for which he worked full-duty. While employer argued to the commission, on review, that claimant failed to adequately market his residual work capacity beginning June 22, 2005, it did not argue that claimant returned to full duty from June 22, 2005 through June 30, 2005, and therefore was not entitled to benefits for that period. Accordingly, we will not address that argument on appeal. See Rule 5A:18. Although Rule 5A:18 allows exceptions for good cause or to meet the ends of justice, appellant[s] [do] not argue that we should invoke these exceptions. See e.g., Redman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215, 221, 487 S.E.2d 269, 272 (1997) ( In order to avail oneself of the exception, a defendant opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Heath v. AFGD Glass/AFG Industries, Inc., VWC File No. 218-86-41 (April 11, 2007). 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. must affirmatively show that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, not that a miscarriage might have occurred. (emphasis added)). We will not consider, sua sponte, a miscarriage of justice argument under Rule 5A:18. Edwards v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 752, 761, 589 S.E.2d 444, 448 (2003) (en banc). - 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.