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.
ANA RUTH ARAUJO DEACEVEDO v. HEALTHCARE SERVICE GROUP, INC. AND ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY
(Ana Ruth Araujo DeAcevedo, pro se, on brief).
Ana Ruth Araujo DeAcevedo appeals a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission finding that appellant failed to carry her burden of proving a change in her condition, the need for any surgery, or any additional disability resulting from the accident. We have reviewed the record and the commission's opinion and find that this appeal is without merit.1 Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See DeAcevedo v. Healthcare Service Grp., Inc., VWC File No. 2376115 (Nov. 9, 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.
Affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE. FN*. Pursuant to Code § 17.1–413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
FN1. On February 29, 2012, appellees filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that appellant failed to file timely her opening brief. Appellant filed a response in objection thereto. Appellant's opening brief was due February 21, 2012. Appellant filed an opening brief on February 17, 2012 and an amended brief on February 28, 2012. Neither brief complied with Rules 5A:4, 5A:20, and 5A:24. Considering our ruling herein, the motion to dismiss is denied.. FN1. On February 29, 2012, appellees filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that appellant failed to file timely her opening brief. Appellant filed a response in objection thereto. Appellant's opening brief was due February 21, 2012. Appellant filed an opening brief on February 17, 2012 and an amended brief on February 28, 2012. Neither brief complied with Rules 5A:4, 5A:20, and 5A:24. Considering our ruling herein, the motion to dismiss is denied.
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. 2465–11–4
Decided: May 08, 2012
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)