Louisiana Chemical Dismantling Company and Great Divide Insurance Company v. Charles Russell, III
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Petty, AtLee and Retired Judge Felton LOUISIANA CHEMICAL DISMANTLING COMPANY AND GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Record No. 0506-16-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM JULY 26, 2016 CHARLES RUSSELL, III FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Michael P. Del Bueno; Megan Kerwin Clark; Whitt & Del Bueno, PC, on briefs), for appellants. (Gregory E. Camden; Montagna Klein Camden, LLP, on brief), for appellee. Louisiana Chemical Dismantling Company and Great Divide Insurance Company (LCD herein) appeal a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that Charles Russell, III, was entitled to temporary total disability benefits from April 10, 2015 and continuing. In support of this appeal, LCD argues the Commission erred by (1) finding Russell proved he was totally disabled from all employment beginning April 10, 2015 and he had no duty to market his residual work capacity; (2) finding Russell was totally disabled continuing from April 22, 2015 when he was out of work solely to administer medication every two hours; and (3) awarding total temporary disability benefits from April 10, 2015, when Russell was on notice that he could perform light-duty work and he did not establish efforts to market his residual work capacity. Retired Judge Felton took part in the consideration of this case by designation pursuant to Code § 17.1-400(D). Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 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 Russell v. Louisiana Chem. Dismantling Co., VWC File No. VA02000014699 (Feb. 24, 2016). 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.
