Opinion
Record No. 0416-92-4
October 13, 1992
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION.
Frank B. Tavenner; A. H. Michael Rankin (Justine G. Cuccia; A. H. Michael Rankin, P. A., on briefs), for appellant.
Charles F. Midkiff (James G. Muncie, Jr.; Midkiff Hiner, P. C., on brief), for appellees.
Present: Chief Judge Koontz, Judges Barrow and Willis.
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia.
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated publication.
This appeal challenges the decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission finding that an employee's intoxication was a proximate cause of his injuries. We hold that (1) the commission's decision was supported by credible evidence, (2) the commission was not required to take new evidence following remand by this court, and (3) the commission correctly construed the remand of this court. Consequently, we affirm its decision.
A.
The facts underlying the commission's decision are fully described in its opinion. The commission's findings of fact are supported by credible evidence, and, therefore, we may not disturb them. Code § 65.2-706(A).
The commission properly relied upon the medical reports of two physicians. We find no objection to their admissibility in the record of the proceedings, and, furthermore, Rule 1.F(2) of the Rules of the Industrial Commission permits such reports to "be submitted in lieu of testimony by physicians or medical care providers."
The commission found that the employee's "decreased judgment and imbalance due to alcohol consumption and intoxication contributed to his fall." This finding is supported by credible evidence and we may not disturb it. Code § 65.2-706(A).
B.
The commission was not required following a remand from this court to take additional evidence. Although our remand was for the purpose of permitting the commission to make "further findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding proximate cause," it did not direct the commission to take any additional evidence. See Wyle v. Professional Services Industries, Inc., 12 Va. App. 684, 690, 406 S.E.2d 410, 413 (1991). Furthermore, when the commission reviews the decision of a deputy commissioner, which in effect it was doing in this instance, it need not take new evidence, but may simply review the evidence presented at the original hearing. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co. v. Pierce, 5 Va. App. 374, 382, 363 S.E.2d 433, 437-38 (1987).
C.
We find nothing in the record to support the employee's contention that the commission misinterpreted our remand as a directive to change its original findings and find that the employee's intoxication was the proximate cause of his injuries. We directed the commission to determine whether the employee's intoxication "played any part in contributing to his injury, i.e., by affecting his balance or causing him to disregard the danger." Wyle, 12 Va. App. at 689-90, 406 S.E.2d at 413. This the commission did.
For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision denying the employee compensation.
Affirmed.