City of Fredericksburg and VML Insurance Programs v. Juanna Grijalva
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Elder, Alston and Senior Judge Willis CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG AND VML INSURANCE PROGRAMS v. Record No. 0833-12-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM SEPTEMBER 4, 2012 JUANNA GRIJALVA FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Ralph L. Whitt. Jr.; Whitt & Del Bueno, PC, on brief), for appellants. (Leila H. Kilgore; Kilgore & Smith, on brief), for appellee. The City of Fredericksburg and VML Insurance Programs (collectively appellants) appeal a decision of the Workers Compensation Commission (the commission) awarding temporary total disability benefits to Juanna Grijalva, beginning July 27, 2011 to the present and continuing. On appeal, appellants argue the commission erred in: (1) finding Grijalva reasonably marketed her residual work capacity; and (2) holding that the determination as to whether Grijalva conducted a good faith job search was best based on the deputy commissioner s observations of her demeanor and credibility regarding her marketing efforts rather than basing its findings on whether Grijalva satisfied the commission s marketing guidelines and the analysis set forth in National Linen Serv. v. McGuinn, 8 Va. App. 267, 380 S.E.2d 31 (1989). 1 We have reviewed the record and the commission s opinion and find that this * 1 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. We note that in its opinion, the commission cited to National Linen and listed a number of the factors addressed in that case in determining whether a claimant has made a reasonable effort to market his residual capacity. See id. at 272, 380 S.E.2d at 34-35. appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Grijalva v. City of Fredericksburg, VWC File No. VA00000246998 (Apr. 10, 2012). 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.
