Pines Residential Treatment Center and Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Karen J. Frith

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Frank, Alston and Senior Judge Coleman PINES RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT CENTER AND TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA v. Record No. 0561-11-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM JULY 19, 2011 KAREN J. FRITH FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Francis G. Marrin; Law Offices of Roger S. Mackey, on brief), for appellants. No brief for appellee. Pines Residential Treatment Center and its insurer, Travelers Indemnity Company of America (collectively employer ) appeal a decision of the Workers Compensation Commission. Employer asserts the commission erred in (1) finding Frith s injuries from the original work-related accident had not fully resolved; (2) finding Frith s ongoing medical treatment was related to the original accident; (3) not addressing Frith s failure to prove the medical treatment she sought from Dr. Cynthia Su was causally related to her work accident; (4) failing to conclude Frith suffered new injuries to her neck and shoulders in an unrelated motor vehicle accident; and (5) giving more weight to Dr. Su s medical opinion than the medical opinions of Dr. Maria C. Salumbides, Dr. Scott Horn, Dr. Mark Ross, and Dr. Richard L. Wilson, Jr. 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 Frith v. Pines Residential Treatment Center, VWC File No. 226-60-80 * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. (Feb. 17, 2011). 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.