Callahan v. Norfolk Dredging Company Continental Ins Co., 031221 VAWC, VA02000034151

Case DateMarch 12, 2021
CourtVirginia
JAMES R. CALLAHAN
v.
NORFOLK DREDGING COMPANY CONTINENTAL INS CO (THE), Insurance Carrier
CONTINENTAL INS CO, Claim Administrator
Jurisdiction Claim No. VA02000034151
Claim Administrator File No. E2F50602
Virginia Workers’ Compensation
Virginia In The Workers’ Compensation Commission
March 12, 2021
          Date of Injury: April 30, 2019           Philip J. Geib, Esquire For the Claimant.           Matthew S. Tidball, Esquire For the Defendants.           REVIEW on the record by Commissioner Marshall, Commissioner Newman, and Commissioner Rapaport at Richmond, Virginia.           OPINION           NEWMAN Commissioner          The defendants request interlocutory review of the Deputy Commissioner’s December 3, 2020 decision denying their Motion to Dismiss the claimant’s claim. We AFFIRM as we DENY interlocutory review.          I. Material Proceedings          The claimant was involved in a workplace accident on April 30, 2019 and sustained an injury to his left biceps/arm. He was awarded medical benefits by Stipulated Order entered on September 3, 2020.          On October 22, 2020, the claimant filed a protective claim for temporary total disability benefits. He did not specify any periods of wage loss and stated a “hearing is not needed in this matter at this time.” On October 23, 2020, the Commission issued an Acknowledgment of Filing noting that the claim had been filed but that “[n]o further action will be taken on the claim until requested by the parties.”          On October 27, 2020, the defendants filed a Motion to Strike the October 22, 2020 protective claim. They argued the claim sought indemnity benefits for unspecified reasons and that the claimant was attempting to indefinitely extend the Virginia Code § 65.2-708 statute of limitations without any factual basis. On November 11, 2020, the claimant responded that the filing of protective claims was “a usual and customary practice in accord with the Act,” and that the defendants could not require him to request that the claim be docketed for a hearing. He asked for the Motion to Strike be denied. ...

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