Fluor Daniel Services Corporation, et al. v. Archie Short
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Kelsey, Beales and Senior Judge Clements FLUOR DANIEL SERVICES CORPORATION AND AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA v. Record No. 1975-13-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION* PER CURIAM FEBRUARY 18, 2014 ARCHIE SHORT FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Mark A. Stallings, on brief), for appellants. (Amber H. Russo; HammondTownsend, PLC, on brief), for appellee. Fluor Daniel Services Corporation and American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania (hereinafter employer ) appeal a decision of the Workers Compensation Commission (hereinafter commission ) finding that Archie Short (hereinafter claimant ) suffered compensable injuries to his low back and bilateral hips by aggravating his pre-existing avascular necrosis, thereby entitling him to temporary total disability benefits from August 10, 2011 through November 28, 2011. Employer argues the evidence was insufficient to prove a causal connection between the April 5, 2010 accident and claimant s avascular necrosis or to prove the medical treatment for his hips was related to the April 5, 2010 accident. It also contends the commission applied the wrong legal standard in determining whether there was a causal connection between the April 5, * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 2010 accident and the pre-existing condition.1 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 Short v. Fluor Daniel Servs. Corp., JCN VA02000003943 (Sept. 13, 2013). 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. 1 Because employer did not object to the legal standard applied by the commission, it has waived this argument on appeal. See Rule 5A:18. -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.
