Bagley v. CJW Medical Center, 080521 VAWC, 1970080

Case DateAugust 05, 2021
CourtVirginia
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...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT