ROSEMARY POLOZZI
v.
VIRGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC VIRGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Insurance Carrier
PMA MANAGEMENT CORP, TPA, Claim Administrator
Jurisdiction Claim No. VA00001302814
Virginia in the Workers’ Compensation Commission
April 1, 2021
Date
of Injury: February 13, 2017.
Claim
Administrator File No. 0030W78035.
Rosemary Polozzi Claimant, pro se.
Bryan
S. Peeples, Esquire For the Defendant.
REVIEW
on the record by Commissioner Marshall, Commissioner Newman,
and Commissioner Rapaport at Richmond, Virginia.
OPINION
RAPAPORT, Commissioner.
The
claimant requests review of the Deputy Commissioner’s
October 2, 2020 Opinion denying her medical benefits for
confusion, anxiety, low back injury, lower extremity
spasticity, hip/leg injuries, vision changes, bilateral
shoulder injuries, and bilateral hand injuries, which
resulted in a diagnosis of moderate bilateral carpal tunnel
entrapment. We AFFIRM.
I.
Material Proceedings
The
claimant suffered a compensable injury by accident on
February 13, 2017. Most recently, the claimant filed a Claim
for Benefits for this injury by accident on March 2, 2020.
The parties stipulated the claimant suffered a head injury.
The
claimant also alleged she suffered a traumatic brain injury,
post-concussion syndrome, including confusion, anxiety, and
headaches, neck/cervical radiculopathy, low back injury,
bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, injuries to her shoulders,
hands, hips, legs, and eyes, bilateral occipital neuralgia,
and lower extremity focal spasticity. The claimant sought
medical benefits.1
Pertinent
to our review, the defendant disputed the causal connection
between the claimant’s alleged injuries and medical
treatment.
Deputy
Commissioner Ferris held an evidentiary hearing on September
21, 2020. She found the claimant proved compensable
post-concussion syndrome resulting in
headaches,2 cervical radiculopathy, cervical pain, and
bilateral occipital neuralgia. She held the evidence did not
establish the claimant’s confusion, anxiety, low back
condition, extremity focal spasticity, hip condition, leg
condition, changes in vision, or hand symptoms, which
resulted in a diagnosis of moderate bilateral carpal tunnel
entrapment, were causally related to her work accident. She
also did not award medical benefits for the claimant’s
alleged shoulder conditions.
The
claimant timely appeals the Deputy Commissioner’s
decision.3 On review, she asserts the Deputy
Commissioner erred in denying benefits for a low back injury,
lower extremity spasticity, leg/hip problems, vision changes,
bilateral shoulder injuries, and hand symptoms, which
resulted in a diagnosis of carpal tunnel
entrapment.4 For completeness, we also address the
Deputy Commissioner’s denial of benefits for anxiety
and confusion.5
II.
Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law[6]
A.
Claimant’s Request to Reopen the Record
On
review, the claimant requests the Commission consider
additional evidence and argument regarding her vision, lower
extremity spasticity, and shoulders that was not in evidence
below. Rule 3.3 of the Rules of the Virginia
Workers’ Compensation Commission pertains to the
acceptance of additional evidence after a hearing. This rule
provides that such evidence will be considered by the
Commission only when it is absolutely necessary and
advisable, and the party requesting that the evidence be
considered conforms to the rules of the courts of the
Commonwealth of Virginia for the introduction of
after-discovered evidence. To meet these requirements, the
movant must prove the evidence (1) was obtained after the
hearing; (2) is not merely cumulative, corroborative, or
collateral; (3) could not have been discovered before the
hearing by the exercise of reasonable due diligence; and (4)
must be of such a character as to produce an opposite result
on the merits at another hearing. Whittington v.
Commonwealth, 5 Va.App. 212, 215 (1987) (citing Odum
v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 123, 130 (1983)).
We do
not find a sufficient showing that any of the additional
evidence presented meets the requirements above. Commission
Rule 2.2(A) requires parties to be prepared to present
evidence to support a claim at the time and place set for
hearing. The claimant was afforded ample opportunity to
gather evidence and present her case. The claimant, in part,
alleged she was unable to treat with a specific physician for
her vision changes until after the hearing in September 2020.
A review of the claimant’s testimony in the hearing
transcript reflects that this particular physician simply
does not treat workers’ compensation patients. (Tr.
107). As a result, she chose to seek treatment for her vision
with another specialist, whose January 2019 treatment notes
are part of the record. The information before us regarding
this delay in treatment does not meet the requirements of
Rule 3.3. Moreover, there was no request before the Deputy
Commissioner to keep the record open. We find no basis to
consider additional evidence on review.
B.
Denial of Subpoena Request
Within
her addendum to her review request filed November 1, 2020,
the claimant also indicated the Deputy Commissioner erred in
denying her September 10, 2020 subpoena request. Within the
September 11, 2020 documents filed by the claimant, she
addressed a September 10, 2020...
