Mary Elizabeth Clanahan v. Shenandoah County Public Schools, et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Alston, Decker and Senior Judge Coleman MARY ELIZABETH CLANAHAN v. Record No. 1742-13-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION* PER CURIAM JANUARY 7, 2014 SHENANDOAH COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES RISK POOL FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Bradley G. Pollack, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting on brief. (John C. Johnson; Frith Anderson & Peake, P.C., on brief), for appellees. Appellees submitting on brief. Mary Elizabeth Clanahan ( claimant ) appeals a decision of the Workers Compensation Commission finding the evidence insufficient to establish a causal connection between the June 4, 2010 compensable accident and her migraines and neck conditions. Upon reviewing the opening brief, we affirm the commission s opinion because claimant failed to comply with Rule 5A:20(e), which mandates that the opening brief include [t]he standard of review and the argument (including principles of law and authorities) relating to each assignment of error. Claimant cites no legal authorities supporting her arguments. See Fadness v. Fadness, 52 Va. App. 833, 851, 667 S.E.2d 857, 866 (2008) ( If the parties believed that the circuit court erred, it was their duty to present that error to us with legal authority to support their contention. ); Parks v. Parks, 52 Va. App. 663, 664, 666 S.E.2d 547, 548 (2008). * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. Claimant has the burden of showing that reversible error was committed. See Lutes v. Alexander, 14 Va. App. 1075, 1077, 421 S.E.2d 857, 859 (1992). Unsupported assertions of error do not merit appellate consideration. Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53, 56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992). Accordingly, we affirm the commission s final opinion, Clanahan v. Shenandoah Cnty. Pub. Schs., VA00000307592 (Aug. 13, 2013). 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.