Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
JULIET WRIGHT v. JAMES CITY COUNTY
(Juliet Wright, on brief), pro se.
Juliet Wright (hereinafter “claimant”) appeals a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission finding that her claims for an injury by accident and for an occupational disease are barred by the statute of limitations. The commission also decided claimant failed to prove she had sustained a compensable injury by accident or that she was suffering from an occupational disease.1 We have reviewed the record and the commission's opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Wright v. James City Cty., VWC File No. 241–65–65 (June 20, 2011). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1–403; Rule 5A:27.2
Affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE. FN*. Pursuant to Code § 17.1–413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
FN1. In her opening brief, claimant attempts to introduce new evidence. We have not considered that evidence. In addition, we have not considered claimant's medical malpractice allegations; it falls outside of the commission's jurisdiction and our jurisdiction.. FN1. In her opening brief, claimant attempts to introduce new evidence. We have not considered that evidence. In addition, we have not considered claimant's medical malpractice allegations; it falls outside of the commission's jurisdiction and our jurisdiction.
FN2. Claimant has filed a request for a writ of certiorari and a request to delay consideration of this case. We deny those requests.. FN2. Claimant has filed a request for a writ of certiorari and a request to delay consideration of this case. We deny those requests.
MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Record No. 1444–11–1
Decided: December 28, 2011
Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)