Corey R. PollardWorkers' compensation & disability attorney · Former insurance defense · Best Lawyers in America®
Why trust this article? Written by the attorney who handles these cases before the Commission, not a content team, and reviewed against current Virginia law.
The Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission issued four opinions yesterday, August 12, 2026.
These holdings address the law of the case doctrine, the weaknesses of IME reports, late payments, repetitive motion claims, and AI-generated briefs.
Here’s what each decision held and what it means if you have a claim pending.
Goodwin v. Benco Dental Supply Co.: The Importance of an Award Establishing the Law of the Case
Jurisdiction Claim No. VA00002341120 | Decided Aug. 12, 2026
The holding: The Commission affirmed the Deputy Commissioner’s decision and reinstated the claimant’s temporary total disability benefits, rejecting the employer’s attempt to terminate an award based on a one-time defense medical examination (commonly called an IME).
What happened: There was no dispute that the claimant sustained covered injuries to his head, neck, and lumbar spine. The Commission entered a Stipulated Award, and the defendants had paid temporary total disability and medical benefits under it. Months later, the defendant filed an Employer’s Application for Hearing seeking to terminate the award. The application was accepted for filing, and benefits were suspended pending the hearing. The employer’s evidence was a report from Dr. Pateder, who examined the claimant once at the employer’s request and concluded that he could return to work and that any ongoing disability or need for treatment was unrelated to the accident. The claimant countered with reports from his treating physicians – Dr. Stergis, a neurologist, and Dr. Patel, a pain management specialist – neither of whom had released him to work.
Why it came out that way: The employer had the burden of proof on its application, and a single examination could not meet it against two treating physicians who had managed the claimant’s care. But the more serious problem was the foundation of Dr. Pateder’s opinion. He based his conclusions on a finding that the claimant sustained no objective injury in the accident – the very injuries the parties had already agreed to, and the Commission had already awarded. An unappealed award is final as to the injuries it accepts. The employer could not relitigate compensability through a medical opinion that rejected the injuries.
What this means for injured workers: This decision shows why getting an Award Order entered early matters so much. Once an award establishes which injuries are compensable, that question is closed, and a defense examiner who reopens it has undermined his own opinion before the weighing begins. That argument frequently fails on these grounds. You would be surprised how often insurers make it anyway.
Mairena v. Espinoza Remodels LLC: A Penalty When the Settlement Check Never Goes to the Worker
Jurisdiction Claim No. VA02000042594 | Decided Aug. 12, 2026
The holding. The Commission affirmed a penalty against the insurer under Virginia Code § 65.2-524 for the late payment of settlement proceeds – even though the claimant had asked the insurer to send his check to his attorney instead of his home.
What happened. The Commission entered a settlement order on May 22, 2025. Because of problems with his mail service, the claimant asked the insurer to mail his check to his attorney’s office. Although the check for an attorney’s fee arrived on time, the claimant’s check did not.
The record showed months of reissued checks to the claimant, with it finally arriving on July 11, 2025. This was the fourth check the insurer had issued. A few days later, the claimant received an earlier check the insurer had issued on June 24. It had a postmark of July 16.
Why it came out that way. Under § 65.2-524, the insurer had to make the settlement payment by July 5, 2025 – 44 days after the Commission entered the settlement – extended to July 6 because the original deadline fell on a Sunday.
Rule 9.2 of the Rules of the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission requires that compensation be paid directly to the injured worker whether or not he has a lawyer, and under Audobon Tree Service v. Childress, a payment counts when it is mailed directly to the claimant, at his current residential address.
This rule usually protects insurers because it states they do not have to guarantee that a check arrives. But here the rule hurt the insurer because it offered no evidence that it actually mailed a check to the claimant within the applicable deadline. Any checks sent to counsel before that deadline did not save the insurer.
The Commission also rejected the argument that the claimant should be estopped because he requested the accommodation. Parties can make those arrangements, but the insurer bears the risk, and speculation about whether the post office or the law office lost the check could not carry the defendants’ burden of showing good cause.
What this means for injured workers. If your settlement or award payment arrives late, you may be entitled to a 20% penalty on top of what you were already owed. Two things about this case are worth knowing. First, the insurer here tried – it issued four checks, and it lost anyway, because good intentions do not always matter. Second, asking the insurer to send your money somewhere other than your home does not waive your right to the penalty. And clients often ask to have their checks mailed to us so they can pick them up. That matters, because the people who make that request are usually the ones in the tightest spot, and this claimant was weeks from eviction while four checks circulated.
Abebe v. Amazon.Com, Inc.: Repetitive Lifting Defeats a Warehouse Claim – and the Commission Flags an AI-Written Brief
Jurisdiction Claim No. VA00002236985 | Decided Aug. 12, 2026
The holding. The Commission affirmed the denial of an Amazon warehouse worker’s claim, finding the claimant’s conditions were gradually incurred through repetitive motions, repetitive lifting, or cumulative trauma, rather than an injury by accident.
What happened. The claimant asserts that he suffered a sudden onset of neck pain immediately following the lifting event, and that this incident aggravated any pre-existing conditions. But days earlier he had reported neck, back, and knee pain that began one to two weeks earlier.
Why it came out that way. Cumulative trauma is not compensable in Virginia workers’ compensation law, however it is labeled. Stenrich Group v. Jemmott, 251 Va. 186 (1996). An injury by accident requires an identifiable incident at a definite time. The Deputy Commissioner doubted the claimant’s credibility once the records contradicted his testimony about prior symptoms, and the Commission deferred to that finding.
The AI footnote. In footnote 1, the Commission concluded that a substantial portion or all of the claimant’s pro se brief was written using generative artificial intelligence (“AI”), identifiable from its framework, logic, and phrasing. It noted that in other cases it has stricken AI-derived filings containing hallucinated citations. It declined to strike here, but found the brief largely unpersuasive. Virginia’s Commission is now saying out loud that it recognizes AI-drafted submissions and will disregard or strike them.
What this means for injured workers. Warehouse and manufacturing claims fail on this issue more than any other. What your medical records say at the first visit, before anyone considered litigation, may matter more than what you testify to at a workers’ comp hearing or deposition a year later. While repetitive lifting may have contributed to your injury and condition, you must tell your medical providers about the exact moment you felt pain and what you were doing when you did. And if you’re handling a claim without a lawyer, an AI-generated brief is worse than a short one in your own words. The Commission may be able to tell.
Anderson v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.: Getting Up Off the Floor, Without More, Isn’t a Risk of Employment
Jurisdiction Claim No. VA00002131595 | Decided Aug. 12, 2026
The holding. The Commission affirmed the denial of a claim seeking benefits for injuries to the left hip, hamstring, and left leg, finding the injury did not arise out of a specific risk of the employment. Additionally, the Commission denied the request for a rehearing before a different Deputy Commissioner.
What happened. The claimant testified that she felt something pull when she turned to stand up after sitting on the floor while folding items in the clothing department of a Walmart store. Her deposition testimony, however, was that her left leg bothered her before the alleged incident. And a medical opinion suggested the labral tear was degenerative.
Why it came out that way. Virginia does not follow the positional risk test, which holds that an injury is compensable because it happened at work. Instead, an injured worker in Virginia must connect the injury to a specific risk or hazard of the job. Here, the Commission held that even if the claimant was injured during a specific instance of rising from the floor, the evidence did not establish an injury that “arose out of the employment.” Without evidence that the movement was awkward or contorted, that she was working in a confined space, or that the space’s configuration contributed to her injury, she could not meet her burden of proof.
What this means for injured workers. “It happened on the clock” is not enough in Virginia. When an injury comes from an ordinary movement, you have to show what about the job made that movement risky – a cramped space, an awkward posture, a heavy load, a bad surface. That evidence has to come out at hearing, usually from your own testimony. And you must tell your doctors about it. This claimant, who handled the case herself, said the pants were heavy and she was rushing but never described a confined space or strained position, and nothing else in the record supplied it.
If you have a Virginia workers’ compensation claim and any of these issues sound familiar, contact us for a free consultation. I spent years defending these claims for insurers before I started representing injured workers, and I know what to look for.
This post summarizes decisions of the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission for educational purposes. It is not legal advice, and every claim turns on its own facts.
Unsure what this means for your case?
Send me the basics. I'll tell you what your claim is worth and what to do next, free and confidential.