computertraining com by lestercaldwell


									VIRGINIA:                                                                       11/23/2005

RENEE S. BYRD, Claimant
                                                                                Opinion by the
v.                    VWC File No. 218-74-70


Ms. Renee S. Byrd
2330 Princess Anne Road
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
Claimant, Pro Se.

Kevin D. Sharp, Esquire
Taylor and Walker, P.C.
P.O. Box 3490
Norfolk, VA 23510
for the Defendants.

     REVIEW on the record by Commissioner Dudley, Commissioner Tarr, and
Commissioner Diamond at Richmond, Virginia.

       This case is before the Commission on the claimant’s request for Review of the

Deputy Commissioner’s April 18, 2005, Opinion, denying her claim for depression. We affirm.

       On May 19, 2004, the claimant, a field training coordinator, filed a Claim for Benefits

alleging that she suffered depression as an occupational disease. She alleged a communication

date of April 13, 2004, by Dr. Patricia Jones-King, psychiatrist, and Dr. Ellen B. Dixon,

psychologist. The claimant sought compensation for total wage loss beginning April 13, 2004,

and continuing, and medical benefits.

       The claimant testified that she felt that her psychological condition was a work-related

disease because the employer instituted policy and managerial changes, which changed her job
                                                                       VWC File No. 218-74-70

duties and responsibilities significantly. Eventually she came under the supervision of a new

manager who “was a tyrant” and “constantly” sent e-mails (Tr. at 16). The claimant stated that

she could not “keep up with it” and felt “left out of different things.” (Tr. at 16). The changes

were instituted over several months. The claimant said that she became nervous, depressed,

anxious, and overwhelmed. She sought medical treatment on or about April 13, 2004, and was

advised not to return to work. The claimant understood that this work restriction remained the

same. She testified that she had not worked anywhere since April 13, 2004. The claimant

acknowledged some personal stressors, but maintained that: “I had pretty good coping skills

until things got unmanageable at my job.” (Tr. at 27).

       The medical records reflect that Dr. Dixon diagnosed major depressive disorder and

excused the claimant from work. In an April 14, 2004, letter, she noted work-related problems.

In a March 15, 2005, letter, Dr. Dixon stated that the claimant’s symptoms were brought about

by conditions at her place of employment.

       On Review, we note that the evidence demonstrates that the claimant is suffering from

depression related to her work, according to Dr. Dixon. However, we find it clear from her

testimony that she is seeking compensation for a psychological disability resulting from stress

related to managerial decisions and conflicts with supervisors, which is not compensable in

Virginia. Teasley v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 14 Va. App. 45, 49, 415 S.E.2d 596, 598 (1992).

The Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission does not have jurisdiction over claims for

purely psychological problems caused by conflicts over supervisory decisions, workplace

conditions, employer policies, and the like. Accordingly, the claimant’s claim must be denied.

                                                                  VWC File No. 218-74-70

       The Opinion below is AFFIRMED.

       This matter is hereby removed from the Review docket.


       This Opinion shall be final unless appealed to the Virginia Court of Appeals within

30 days of receipt.

cc:, Inc.
       11350 McCormick Road
       Suite 100
       Hunt Valley, MD 21031

       Twin City Fire Insurance Company
       P.O. Box 958459
       Lake Mary, FL 32795


To top