Al Gleeson Electrical Co., Inc . and Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. v. Forrest J. Hatcher
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Frank, McClanahan and Retired Judge Hodges AL GLEESON ELECTRICAL CO., INC. AND TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY CO. v. Record No. 0518-08-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION** PER CURIAM SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 FORREST J. HATCHER FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Michael E. Ollen, on brief), for appellants. (W. David Falcon, Jr.; Chasen Boscolo, on brief), for appellee. Al Gleeson Electrical Co., Inc. and its insurer (hereinafter referred to as employer ) appeal a decision of the Workers Compensation Commission finding that Forrest J. Hatcher proved he (1) sustained an injury by accident occurring in the course of his employment on December 15, 2004; (2) gave timely notice of his injury to employer; and (3) sustained a meniscus tear in his left knee, which resulted in surgery and total disability from December 17, 2004 through July 5, 2005, causally related to his compensable December 15, 2004 injury by accident. 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 February 28, 2007 opinion with respect to the issue presented in Question 1, and for the reasons stated by the commission in its February 6, 2008 final opinion with respect to the issues presented in Questions 2 and 3. See Hatcher v. Al Gleeson Elec. Co., Inc., VWC File No. Retired Judge Hodges took part in the consideration of this case by desgination pursuant to Code § 17.1-400(D). Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 223-63-64 (Feb. 28, 2007 and Feb. 6, 2008). 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. -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.
