{"id":17314,"date":"2002-07-30T01:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-07-30T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/valawyersweekly.com\/fulltext-opinions\/2002\/07\/30\/danny-leonard-lam-v-kawneer-company-inc\/"},"modified":"2002-07-30T01:00:00","modified_gmt":"2002-07-30T06:00:00","slug":"danny-leonard-lam-v-kawneer-company-inc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/valawyersweekly.com\/fulltext-opinions\/2002\/07\/30\/danny-leonard-lam-v-kawneer-company-inc\/","title":{"rendered":"DANNY LEONARD LAM V KAWNEER COMPANY INC"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA<\/p>\n<p>Present:  Judges Benton, Bumgardner and Agee<br \/>\nArgued at Alexandria, Virginia<\/p>\n<p>DANNY LEONARD LAM<br \/>\n    OPINION BY<br \/>\nv.  Record No. 3158-01-4  JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III<br \/>\n    JULY 30, 2002<br \/>\nKAWNEER COMPANY, INC. AND<br \/>\n PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY<\/p>\n<p>  FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS&#8217; COMPENSATION COMMISSION<\/p>\n<p>  Kathleen G. Walsh for appellant.<\/p>\n<p>  Charles F. Midkiff (Midkiff, Muncie &amp; Ross,<br \/>\nP.C., on brief), for appellees.<\/p>\n<p>  Danny Leonard Lam appeals a decision of the Workers&#8217;<br \/>\nCompensation Commission permitting the employer to terminate<br \/>\nbenefits without filing an application and refusing to impose a<br \/>\npenalty for not paying the benefits.  Finding no error, we<br \/>\naffirm.<br \/>\nThe worker sustained an injury on February 23, 1988 for<br \/>\nwhich he received compensation until April 11, 1994.  The<br \/>\nemployer ceased paying benefits at that time because it received<br \/>\na letter from the worker stating that he had begun working at a<br \/>\nwage greater1 than his pre-injury wage.  By letter dated June 13,<\/p>\n<p>1 The letter stated the worker had returned to work as a<br \/>\ntruck driver but indicated, incorrectly, a wage which was below<br \/>\nhis pre-injury wage.  The letter also incorrectly gave the date<br \/>\nof employment as March 1993.  The parties have stipulated<br \/>\nthroughout these proceedings that the worker was employed and<\/p>\n<p>1994, the insurer requested the worker to provide the name of<br \/>\nhis current employer, the date he started working, and copies of<br \/>\nhis pay stubs.  The worker did not respond.<br \/>\n  The commission sent form letters annually noting an<br \/>\noutstanding award and directing, &#8220;if payments have ceased, an<br \/>\nexecuted Agreed Statement of Fact or an Employer&#8217;s Application<br \/>\nfor Hearing must be filed to end the Award.&#8221;  The insurer did<br \/>\nnot respond to the commission&#8217;s letters, but it wrote the<br \/>\nworker&#8217;s counsel on July 27, 1995 acknowledging the worker&#8217;s<br \/>\nreturn to work and requesting, &#8220;please contact me so that we may<br \/>\ndiscuss terminating the outstanding award.&#8221;<br \/>\n  On September 20, 1999, the commission wrote the insurer to<br \/>\ninform that the worker &#8220;had now received the maximum 500 weeks<br \/>\nfor compensation benefits&#8221; and requested the total amount of<br \/>\ncompensation the employer paid to him.  The insurer responded<br \/>\nthat it had paid $58,871.40.  The commission then advised the<br \/>\nemployer had underpaid by $58,049.30.  On June 7, 2000, the<br \/>\nworker asserted this claim for compensation from April 11, 1994<br \/>\nthrough December 31, 1997 and imposition of the 20% penalty for<br \/>\nnon-payment.2<\/p>\n<p>earned wages higher than his pre-injury wages at all times after<br \/>\nApril 11, 1994.<\/p>\n<p>  2 Code ? 65.2-524 provides in part, &#8220;If any payment is not<br \/>\npaid within two weeks after it becomes due, there shall be added<br \/>\nto such unpaid compensation an amount equal to twenty percent<br \/>\nthereof . . . .&#8221;<br \/>\n  &#8211; 2 &#8211;<\/p>\n<p>  The deputy commissioner denied the claim, and the full<br \/>\ncommission affirmed under its general equitable power to do full<br \/>\nand complete justice.  The worker contends he is entitled to the<br \/>\nunpaid benefits because the insurer failed to file an<br \/>\napplication to terminate the award and unilaterally ceased<br \/>\nmaking payments.  We conclude that the commission properly<br \/>\nexercised its authority.<\/p>\n<p>  When a worker does not suffer a loss of wages, receipt of<br \/>\ncompensation benefits would unjustly enrich the worker and<br \/>\nresult in manifest injustice.  It is &#8220;&#8216;[n]either logical,<br \/>\nreasonable, [n]or within the spirit of the Act'&#8221; to award<br \/>\nbenefits when a worker is not entitled to them.  Collins v.<br \/>\nDep&#8217;t of Alcoholic Beverage Comm., 21 Va. App. 671, 680, 467<br \/>\nS.E.2d 279, 283 (quoting Harris v. Diamond Contr. Co., 184 Va.<br \/>\n711, 720, 36 S.E.2d 573, 577 (1946)), aff&#8217;d en banc, 22 Va. App.<br \/>\n625, 472 S.E.2d 287 (1996).  The commission has applied this<br \/>\nprinciple in Goodman v. Tricorp, Inc., 01 WC UNP 1702161 (July<br \/>\n23, 2001) (worker barred from receiving windfall even though<br \/>\nemployer failed to properly terminate award), and in Kline v.<br \/>\nNewport News Shipbuilding, 00 WC UNP 1706454 (May 9, 2000)<br \/>\n(benefits denied when &#8220;the occurrence of some mistake or unfair<br \/>\nconduct . . . would render strict application of the Act<br \/>\nunjust&#8221;).  Interpretations of the act by the commission are<br \/>\nentitled to great weight.  Peyton v. Williams, 206 Va. 595, 600,<br \/>\n145 S.E.2d 147, 151 (1965).<br \/>\n  &#8211; 3 &#8211;<\/p>\n<p>  The worker returned to work April 11, 1994 and remained<br \/>\ncontinuously employed at a wage greater than his pre-injury<br \/>\nwage.  He did not provide the insurer with the necessary details<br \/>\nof his change in employment, identify his new employer, or<br \/>\nprovide salary information or residential address changes when<br \/>\nthe insurer requested the information.  The worker did not<br \/>\ndispute that he neglected to comply with the notice requirements<br \/>\nof Code ? 65.2-712.  He testified he did not think he needed to<br \/>\nprovide that information because he was not asking the insurer<br \/>\n&#8220;to make up the difference.&#8221;  The worker sought to enforce the<br \/>\naward six years after he last received a compensation payment<br \/>\nwhen he received the commission&#8217;s letter indicating that the<br \/>\nemployer had underpaid the award by more than $58,000.<br \/>\n  While we do not condone the employer&#8217;s failure to file an<br \/>\napplication to terminate the award,3 we note the full commission<br \/>\nfound, &#8220;[t]here is no evidence . . . that the employer has<br \/>\nflaunted the Commission requirements that it file a memoranda<br \/>\nwhen accepting the claim.&#8221;  The equitable power of the<br \/>\ncommission, as exemplified in the doctrine of imposition,<\/p>\n<p>3 The employer was unsuccessful in its attempts to get<br \/>\ndocumentation from the worker.  An application for the<br \/>\ntermination of benefits must be based on documentation<br \/>\n&#8220;sufficient to support a finding of probable cause to believe<br \/>\n[his] . . . grounds for relief are meritorious.&#8221;  Circuit City<br \/>\nStores, Inc. v. Scotece, 28 Va. App. 383, 386, 504 S.E.2d 881,<br \/>\n883 (1998) (footnote and citations omitted).<\/p>\n<p>  &#8211; 4 &#8211;<\/p>\n<p>includes the power to &#8220;&#8216;render decisions based on justice shown<br \/>\nby the total circumstances even though no fraud, mistake or<br \/>\nconcealment has been shown.'&#8221;  Odom v. Red Lobster #235, 20<br \/>\nVa. App. 228, 234, 456 S.E.2d 140, 143 (1995) (quoting Avon<br \/>\nProds. Inc. v. Ross, 14 Va. App. 1, 7, 415 S.E.2d 225, 228<br \/>\n(1992)).  The purpose of the Act &#8220;&#8216;is to compensate injured<br \/>\nworkers for lost wages, not to enrich them unjustly.'&#8221;  Collins,<br \/>\n21 Va. App. at 678, 467 S.E.2d at 282 (quoting Harris, 184 Va.<br \/>\nat 717, 36 S.E.2d at 576).<br \/>\n  Because the worker was not entitled to benefits, no penalty<br \/>\nwas applicable.  Accordingly, we affirm the commission.<br \/>\n          Affirmed.<\/p>\n<p>  &#8211; 5 &#8211;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>no benefits as no loss of wage w\/out filing of app to terminate<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17314","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","always_free"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/valawyersweekly.com\/fulltext-opinions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17314"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/valawyersweekly.com\/fulltext-opinions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/valawyersweekly.com\/fulltext-opinions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/valawyersweekly.com\/fulltext-opinions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/valawyersweekly.com\/fulltext-opinions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17314"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/valawyersweekly.com\/fulltext-opinions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17314\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/valawyersweekly.com\/fulltext-opinions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17314"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/valawyersweekly.com\/fulltext-opinions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17314"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/valawyersweekly.com\/fulltext-opinions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17314"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}