RENEE BAGLEY
v.
CJW MEDICAL CENTER
TRANSPORTATION INS CO, Insurance Carrier
BROADSPIRE SERVICES, INC, Claim Administrator
RENEE BAGLEY
v.
HCA-PAT ACCT SVC CTR-RICHMOND
TRANSPORTATION INS CO, Insurance Carrier
BROADSPIRE SERVICES, INC, Claim Administrator
Jurisdiction Nos. 1970080, 2105838
Virginia In The Workers’ Compensation Commission
August 5, 2021
Date
of Injury: July 13, 1998
Date
of Injury: October 9, 2000
Claim
Administrator File Nos. 9000179105001, 9000320744001
Renee
Bagley Claimant, pro se.
Lisa
M. Frisina, Esquire For the Defendants.
REVIEW
on the record by Commissioner Marshall, Commissioner Newman,
and Commissioner Rapaport at Richmond, Virginia.
OPINION
NEWMAN
Commissioner.
Before
us is the claimant’s request to review the Deputy
Commissioner’s March 1, 2021 Opinion which adjudicated
an array of claims for benefits arising from two compensable
accidents. The claimant predicates her review request upon
allegations of misconduct and a collection of perceived
errors. Finding no errors and concluding that the
claimant’s allegations of misconduct are entirely
unfounded, we AFFIRM.
I.
Material Proceedings
In JCN
1970080, the claimant was awarded medical benefits for right
ankle and left knee injuries sustained in a July 15, 1998
fall on a stairway. She selected Dr. Mark E. deBlois from a
panel and treated with him on several occasions over a period
of months. An August 24, 2000 Opinion from Deputy
Commissioner Herring denied disability benefits and found
that treatment the claimant received from Dr. Robert S.
Adelaar of MCV was unauthorized. Both findings were affirmed
on review before the full Commission in a December 13, 2000
Opinion. In so ruling, the Commission held the claimant had
established a course of treatment with Dr. deBlois and
presented no evidence suggesting his treatment was inadequate
or that circumstance justified a change in physicians.
In JCN
2105838, the claimant was awarded medical benefits for an
October 9, 2000 fall.[1] The Commission reserved a claim for
permanent partial disability subject to the claimant
submitting necessary evidence of maximum medical improvement
and a disability rating.
The
Deputy Commissioner’s March 1, 2021 Opinion found that
the claimant sustained injuries to her low back, bilateral
knees (contusions), and to the left shoulder (a strain,
tendinitis and contusion) in her October 9, 2000 accident. In
addition, and pursuant to the defendants’ stipulation,
the Deputy Commissioner found them liable for a $240.25 bill
from Radiology Associates of Richmond, Inc. The remainder of
the broad spectrum of benefit entitlements advanced in the
six claims filed between September 9, 2019 and June 23, 2020
were denied.
The
claimant requests review.
II.
Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law
A.
The Claimant’s Allegations of Misconduct
We
begin our review with the claimant’s multiple
assertions of misconduct. The claimant’s review request
is a sustained lament incorporating a collection of
sensational allegations leveled against the Deputy
Commissioner, a prior Deputy Commissioner, the Commission at
large, the defendants, counsel for the defendants, the
authorized treating physicians and the two attorneys who
previously endeavored to assist the claimant in the
prosecution of her claims. As to evidence tendered to support
of these salacious contentions, there is none. Accordingly,
we are entirely unpersuaded that the Deputy
Commissioner’s Opinion below is the product of bias,
prejudice, unfairness or nefarious conduct, i.e. payments
under the table,[2] that the claimant’s doctors
are attempting to kill her,[3] or that the defendants bribed the
claimant’s former counsel to decline her
representation.[4] We deem these allegations bereft of
merit.
What we
can fairly measure are those claims advanced regarding the
manner in which the hearing was conducted. Included are
contentions that the Deputy Commissioner treated the claimant
like a bad person,[5] that the hearing was interrupted to
avoid the claimant’s introduction of relevant
evidence,[6] that pertinent sections of the
transcript were deleted,[7] that the claimant was prohibited
from introducing documents,[8] and that submitted evidence was
burned.[9]
We have
completely and carefully reviewed the 250-plus pages of
transcript from the three hearings afforded the claimant. We
glean therefrom substantial evidence that the claimant was
afforded every opportunity to prosecute her multiple claims
through a protracted process during which she was treated
with courtesy and patience. The February 11, 2020 hearing,
the third convened on her claims, was continued over the
objection of the defense so that the claimant could have more
time to prepare and secure counsel. (Tr. 31, Feb. 11, 2020.)
When reconvened, the claimant was counseled that she bore the
burden of proof and needed to provide the medical bills
relevant to her claim for reimbursement. (Tr. 18, Aug. 27,
2020.) The Deputy Commissioner assiduously reviewed the six
applications to be sure to fairly characterize what benefits
were being sought relative to each accident. Every attached
document was examined and the claimant was questioned
regarding their relevance and the relief she claimed. Before
proceeding to the next document or claim, the Deputy
Commissioner secured the claimant’s assent that there
was no more information she wished to introduce. (See,
e.g., Tr. 8, 9, Feb. 11, 2020; Tr. 8, 9, 29, 121, 132,
136; Aug. 27, 2020; Tr. 7, 29, 50, 121, 132, 136, Nov. 18,
2020).
Similarly,
we see no evidence that the claimant was denied the...