(B)

A BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE

The Nature of this Appeal involves questions affecting the Public Health and Welfare at
large because of the Nature of the Relationship of the Virginia Workers Compensation
Commission doing business with Insurance companies at large, and their statutorily
mandated burdens placed on all businesses operating in Commonwealth of Virginia.

On September 26, 2013, the claimant was Injured by accident while performing duties
assigned by Employer. The injured part of the workers body was to the lower back,
thereby damaging the skeletal framing and its internally associated network of nerves
and muscle supports to the core of the physical body. The injured worker promptly
notified multiple parties, including the Commission.

The Virginia Workers Compensation Commission acknowledged receipt of

Claimants Employers Notice of Injury. Injured Worker did not solicit Commission. The
Commission Offered To Injured Worker Instructions to follow to preserve Injured
Workers Rights. Injured Worker Accepted the Offer of Instructions with Terms and
Conditions from the Commission and, In Consideration, injured worker provided
Information to the Commission to preserve Injured Workers Rights.

Injured Workers Medical Only Claim, as Originated by Employer, was corroborated by

Claimant. Employer thereafter also agreed with Claimants other two claims that Injured
Worker filed over the following two years (the first for medical only, the second for Ins.
Companys Contempt, and the third claim for wage losses & costs per the
Commissions Original Offers Terms and Conditions).

In sum, there is approximately four years of events documented from the Origination of
the Case by Employer with the Commission, the multiple instances of Misrepresentation
and Breaches of Contract by the Commission, up to the filing of this Appeal; due to a
jurisdictional defect.

1: 2099 - 16 - 2
The Questions presented address whether Commissioners, who are not licensed in the
following Professional Trades:
a) to practice medicine or the healing arts
b) licensed to practice law,
whether Commissioners may lawfully issue Discretionary judicial Opinions or legally
issue judicial Orders per Virginia Supreme Court Rules.

Further, if Commissioners are not required to be licensed in those professional trades

prior to mediating said disputes, do Commissioners have any enforceable judicial
authority at all, when cases originated in an administrative tribunal, but the entire
tribunal is exempted from both:
a) administrative Due Procedures as codified in Virginia Code, and
b) Judicial Due Process as codified by the Constitution of Virginia

The Commissions stated Public Purpose is to provide procedures to identify and

resolve disputes per Virginia Code. The Commission has not resolved any disputes
in this Case.

Claimant and Claimants employer were not subjects of the Commissions Rules and
Policy as a Public Transmission Corporation; but subjects of Virginia statutory Codes
as Consumers and Constitutional jurisdiction in this Venue as Beneficiaries of pre-paid
Services; thereby creating a jurisdictional defect.

Claimant, MARSHA MAINES, is the injured worker of its former Employer, Piedmont
Airlines. Claimant is the Beneficiary by Assignment of certain Contracted Rights,
Privileges and Benefits by Contract Assignment through Employers (statutorily
mandated) pre-paid Workers Compensation Insurance Policy. The Employers
Contract, in the form of an Insurance Policy Contract with NEW HAMPSHIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY was breached between Employer and NEW HAMPSHIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY, causing damages to Employers Insured Injured Worker;
Beneficiary by Assignment; . The Commissions unlicensed agents co-mingled Material

2: 2099 - 16 - 2
Facts which infringed upon the Delivery of those Assigned Beneficiarys certain
Contracted Rights, Privileges and Benefits. Beneficiary by Assignment (Injured Worker)
has been Damaged.

Appellant files this APPEAL & REQUEST FOR REVIEW DE NOVO.

(C)
A STATEMENT OF THE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
WITH REFERENCE TO THE PAGE(S) WHERE EACH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
WAS PRESERVED IN THE TRIAL COURT.

1) Does the Commission have the Authority, under the Great Seal of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, to do business in Virginia; To make Offers to
Contract with Terms and Conditions, upon Acceptance, Consideration and
Performance, to then Breach their Offered Contract, with impunity?
APPELLANT APPENDIX PAGES 16-19, 478-481
VWC CLERKS TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGES 43-44

2) Can the Commissioners issue judicial Opinions and/or judicial Orders without
being licensed to practice medicine or licensed to practice law?
APPELLANT APPENDINX PAGES 90-91,113,114,115,117-121,123,125,
301-310,311,327,339,471,480-481,482

3) Did the Commission follow Virginia Code in its Interpretation of The Workers
Compensation Act to render each of its judicial Orders and judicial Opinions?
APPELLANT APPENDINX PAGES 467, 780, 787-791

4) Did the Commission err by using co-mingling similar sounding Words to alter the
outcome of the Case?
APPELLANT APPENDINX PAGES565,590,604,670,709,713,716,752,797-
803,833-834

3: 2099 - 16 - 2
5) Did the Commission err by Abuse or Violation of Constitutional Procedural
Process, thereby abrogating the delivery of Due Process to the Injured
Worker/Claimant and Claimants Employer?
APPELLANT APPENDINX PAGES 232,836,837,890,903

6) Did the Commission err when the Full Commission transmitted an Opinion with
mis-statements of the following:
i. material facts not supported by The Record?
ii. Use of Information not present in The Record of the Commissions
own Case Management System,
iii. Application of, unverified Information, not supported by statutory
code, and in violation of, or contrary to the Constitution of Virginia,
to render a judicial Order.

VWC CLERKS TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGES 43-44

7) When the Commission transmitted their Final Opinion, as a Public Transmission

Corporation, applying internal agency Rules, to Non Members of the Public
Transmission Corporation, did it result in a fatal jurisdictional defect?
APPELLANT APPENDINX PAGES 842-869

8) Did the Commission err by their Use of an internal Policy (thats just how its
always been done) or their use of internal administrative Rule/Regulation
(internal to closed members' Ship only) to Attach/Apply to Non Members of that
Agency, for Case management?
121,187,232,229-230

4: 2099 - 16 - 2
 (D)
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS THAT RELATE TO THE ASSIGNMENTS OF
ERROR, WITH REFERENCES TO THE PAGES OF THE TRANSCRIPT,
WRITTEN STATEMENT, RECORD, OR APPENDIX.

The Commissions Offer of Instructions to Injured Worker/Claimant was breached by the

Commission after Acceptance by Claimant when the Commission failed to enforce the
workers best interests. APPELLANT APPENDIX pg 16-19, 478-481

All procedural defects and all opinions issued by the Commission in error, were duly
Noted and Objected to by the Injured Worker/Claimant, throughout the entire
management of the case. APPELLANT APPENDIX pg 17-20,34-35,90,132-133,96,99
(unauthorized practice of law) 121,123

There are several material facts in dispute. The material proceedings, as quoted by
multiple Members of the Commission, are not supported by the actual Instruments
admitted into Evidence which form The Record of the Injured Worker and the Claimants
Employer. APPELLANT APPENDIX pg53,54,417,471,474,476,482

The Commissions version of the Record conflicts with several material facts upon
which the entire foundation of the case rested and many pivot points of the Case as
heard in this Venue, relied upon illusory and unfounded theories not found plainly
written in the Virginia Code, nor the Constitution of Virginia. See: Virginia Code Book

These conflicts begin at the inception of the case management by the Commission,
dating all the way back to the Origination of the case.

There are MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE (by Injured Worker and Claimants
Employer) with the Commission about the following:
Acknowledgement by the Commission of the Notice of the Medical Claim
as Filed by Claimants Employer; who provided Originating information to
the Workers Compensation Commission,
what Actual Claims were filed by the Injured Worker,

5: 2099 - 16 - 2
 Whom provided What information to Whom,
What Personally Identifiable Information was transmitted to third parties
(with or without the Injured Workers Express Consent and Authorization)
the Commissions Use of Internal administrative Policies & Rules to
circumvent their Transmission of Due Procedure to Injured Worker and
Claimants Employer with clean hands and in good faith,
the Creation and Re-transmission of Hearsay by the Commission to
circumvent Delivery of Honest government services under Due Process,
the Commissions use of specific words intentionally co-mingled with the
English definitions of Other similar-sounding words, and
Misrepresentation by the Commission to Transmit their fiduciary duty and
Deliver the Services of Restitution and/or Remedy in the workers best
interests, as statutorily assigned to the Commission, by the Virginia
Codes.

This indigent Injured worker/Claimant was not provided a copy of The Record prior the
Case going to the Court of Appeals, therefore, Injured Worker/Claimant submits the
Actual Downloadable Record directly from the Workers Compensation Commissions
WebFile site utilized for its Case Management Systems.

Most notably missing from The Record submitted to the Court of Appeals were
TRANSCRIPTS and Medical Records defining Disability of Injured Worker as early as
2013 noting a 48-56% Disability, 131-254 as well as the Virginia Supreme Court Rules
which state all Trial Courts only have authority to alter their Decisions within a 21 day
time, but the Commission permitted the Case to Continue until every Administrative
Rule-book game had been fully executed, spanning a total of 3.5 years and Costing the
Injured Worker the loss of her home in Foreclosure, 596, 647-648 Bankruptcy
Proceedings, 649-663 additional medical care for PTSD 901,906 due to judicial abuse
syndrome, and lack of employment opportunities due to Employers failure to offer ADA
accommodation 909.

6: 2099 - 16 - 2
The Cost to Employer for the Commissions Misrepresentation to Injured Worker to
secure the Rights and best interests of the Worker was Employer had to retain New
Workers, Invest additional monies to Train a new worker, and spend Costs for
Attorneys fees to defend a Cause whereby the Employers Pre-Paid Insurance Policy
should have simply paid for the medical care which is the sole purpose of obtaining
an Insurance Policy for Workers Compensation. The Employers own Human
Resources employees could face criminal charges for the Unauthorized Practice of Law
(misdemeanor in Virginia) by independently making the decision (rendering a legal
conclusion) and directing the Station Manager she unilateral is releasing and Ordering
the Injured Worker back to Full Duty prior to any one of six medical Professionals
Opinion that Injured worker could be released and/or discharged from medical care.

The Va Code has been highlighted to noted to the best of her highly restricted and
limited ability as a self-represented party in interest, the fact that the Commissions use
of the word disabled is defined in their rules differently than it is in the Va Code. The
word disability is used 47 times in the Va. Code, however the Commissions Rules use
it only 4 times, yet this is the word the Commission used as if it had an alternate
meaning. The Injured Worker was disabled due to a compensable act while
performing official job duties as assigned by the Employer.

The Injured Workers medical professionals stated within their medical records the level
of loss of function (disability). The Injured Worker was not declared Disabled as the
Commission erroneously presumed was a pre-requisite (not found in Va. Code).

The Table of Contents that was supplied to Injured worker/Claimant after transmitting
the Case, is missing some of the pertinent facts in dispute, and therefore, Claimant
submits the Parts of the Record that are Relevant to proving Appellants case.

Per the Commissions last OPINION, the Commission states as follows:

The claimant filed an October 29, 2013 Claim for Benefits alleging an injury by
accident to her lower back on September 26, 2013. She sought wage loss

7: 2099 - 16 - 2
benefits beginning October 14, 2013, payment of specific medical bills and out of
pocket of expenses. The defendants responded to the Commissions 20-Day
Order and indicated agreement forms would not be sent because further
investigation was needed to determine compensability.

CLAIMANT RESPONSE:
The Claimants Employer notified Commission on 10/10/2013 and Injured
Worker Notified the Commission on 10/12/2013 of a Workplace Injury and
a MEDICAL ONLY CLAIM. APPELLANT APPENDIX pg 9.

The Commission Acknowledge their Receipt of teh NOTICE of Injury and

Responded with an OFFER to Injured Worker to protect her Rights
APPELLANT APPENDIX pg 17-21.

The Injured Worker Accepted the Commissions Offer to ACT by providing

Consideration in the form of information and Form A, as OFFERED for
the Commission for Commission to Act in workers best interests
APPELLANT APPENDIX 20

Claimant filed a Medical Only Claim on October 12, 2013.

Claimant Invested Time and Costs in Commissions Agreement by

complying with their Agreement, in good faith. The Commission Mis-
Represented their Offer, and was Negligent in Delivery of the Services
Offered to Injured Worker and also to Claimants Employer APPELLANT
APPENDIX 25, 111

The Commission Breached the Agreement.

8: 2099 - 16 - 2
FALSE STATEMENTS BY COMMISSION: She sought wage loss benefits
beginning October 14, 2013, payment of specific medical bills and out of pocket
of expenses.
CLAIMANT RESPONSE
Employer Agreed with medical only Claim. Employer Offered Employee
Gifts of Time Off With Pay to seek Medical Care. APPELLANT
APPENDIX pg 31-32. No Claim for Wage Losses (the 3rd Claim) was
Filed by Injured Worker until long after the Commission refused to Enforce
the 2nd Claim Filed by Injured Worker (in 2014) for CONTEMPT AND, the
Commission OFFERED injured Worker another Contract to File a Claim
for Wage Losses.

FALSE STATEMENTS BY COMMISSION:

The claimant filed a November 22, 2013 claim seeking wage loss benefits from
October 18, 2013 through November 18, 2013 and payment of specific medical
expenses. A hearing was set for the October 29, 2013 and November 22, 2013
claims for March 18, 2014 before Deputy Commissioner Tabb.
CLAIMANT RESPONSE:
The claimant filed a November 22, 2013 CHANGE OF ADDRESS VIA
WEBFILE AND UPDATING STATUS OF medical expenses. A hearing
was set for the CLAIM FILED ON October 29, 2013 ...before Deputy
Commissioner Tabb. APPELLANT APPENDIX pg 90

FALSE STATEMENTS BY COMMISSION:

The claimant filed a December 10, 2013 claim seeking total wage loss benefits
from October 19, 2013 through November 10, 2013 and partial wage loss
benefits from October 19, 2013 and continuing. The Deputy Commissioner
added this to the hearing docket for March 18, 2014. The hearing was continued
and rescheduled for April 16, 2014.

9: 2099 - 16 - 2
 CLAIMANT RESPONSE:
The claimant filed a NOTICE OF STATUS UPDATE IN WEBFILE OF
wage losses from October 19, 2013 through November 10, 2013. The
Deputy Commissioner added this to the hearing docket for March 18,
2014. The hearing was continued and rescheduled for April 16, 2014.
APPELLANT APPENDIX 119.

It took the Commission seven months (7) to hold a hearing on the single claim of
Medical Care for the Injured Worker. It took another two (2) full years for the
Commission to Hear the matter of the lost wages Claim.

STATEMENTS BY COMMISSION:
In a June 16, 2014 Opinion, the Deputy Commissioner awarded medical
benefits pursuant to Virginia Code 65.2-603 for as long as necessary for
reasonable, necessary, and authorized treatment causally related to the
claimants September 26, 2013 low back injury. The Deputy Commissioner
denied temporary partial disability benefits from the date of the accident through
October 18, 2013, temporary total disability benefits from October 19, 2013
through November 10, 2013, and temporary partial disability benefits beginning
November 11, 2013. The defendants requested review of the decision to award
medical benefits, and on October 29, 2014 the Commission affirmed.
CLAIMANT RESPONSE:
The Commission refused to follow Virginia Supreme Court Rules for all
tribunals located within the Jurisdiction and Territory of Commonwealth of
Virginia by refusing to grant Injured Worker/Claimant all necessary Costs
to pursue litigation to Defend her Case - thereby relying on Commission to
Serve ALL best interests - inclusive of issuing Subpeonas for Witnesses,
Obtaining Discovery (Security Video Tapes), Ordering Depositions from all
Medical Practitioners and Attending Physicians, etc. The Commissioner
did not Complete Discovery on Injured Workers Behalf. APPELLANT
APPENDIX pg 115

10: 2099 - 16 - 2
STATEMENTS BY COMMISSION:
Our records also disclose that on June 17, 2014 the Commission entered a
Medical Only Award Order providing for reasonable, necessary and authorized
medical treatment causally related to the September 26, 2013 low back injury.
CLAIMANT RESPONSE:
Despite failing in his ministerial duty to represent workers best interests,
the Commission acknowledged the multiple medical Professionals
Professionally Licensed Opinions that Injured Worker was in fact, injured
and suffered disability ranging from 48-56% of Physical Ability - which
prevented her from performing 100% of duties necessary to fulfill job
requirements. APPELLANT APPENDIX 309,311.

The Employer stipulated and Agreed to the AWARD, as plainly written.

Injured Worker continued with Physical Therapy in an attempt to re-gain
100% Physical A-bility to return to Work. Employer, at no time ever
Offered Injured Worker ADA accommodation, or any re-assignment
elsewhere in the company.

FALSE STATEMENTS BY COMMISSION:

The claimant filed claims on July 31, 2014, February 20, 2015, October 28, 2015
and November 21, 2015 seeking temporary total disability benefits beginning
December 27, 2013, temporary partial disability from November 25, 2013 through
January 9, 2013, temporary total disability benefits beginning January 9, 2014,
and medical care and payment of out-of-pocket expenses. She requested costs
and expenses such as parking fees to attend the VWC hearing, postage,
rehabilitation vocational expenses and merit pay. A claim for prescription
medication was resolved.
CLAIMANT RESPONSE:
The claimant filed a Second claims on July 31, 2014 for CONTEMPT OF
COURT against Employers Insurance Provider for BREACH OF
AGREEMENT of June 16, 2014, as stipulated and post-Commission

11: 2099 - 16 - 2
 NOTICE/Agreement on June 17, 2013. APPELLANT APPENDIX pg 311,
337.

Claimant continued to Update STATUS in WEBFILE notifying on February

20, 2015, October 28, 2015 and November 21, 2015 the Commission of
wage losses and still no enforcement of Contempt Claim (2nd Claim
Hearing) as filed on July 31, 2014. Commission took over one full YEAR
to hear CONTEMPT of lack of Medical Award Enforcement issue.
APPELLANT APPENDIX pg 341-347

Claimant continued to Update STATUS in WEBFILE that beginning

December 27, 2013, medical care and payment of out-of-pocket expenses
and WAGE CHANGE to FULL LOSS due to NO MEDICAL RELEASE.
She requested costs and expenses such as parking fees to attend the
VWC hearing, postage, rehabilitation vocational expenses and merit pay
as the OFFER FROM Workers Compensation Commission STATED in
its Original OFFER (agreement/Memorandum of Understanding).
APPELLANT APPENDIX pg 341-347.

The Deputy Commissioner FINALLY addressed the remaining two claims

stated as three issues on June 15, 2016, from which the Full Commission
Reviewed, and this Appeal Follows.

STATEMENTS BY COMMISSION:
ISSUE ONE : Is the claimant entitled to temporary total disability benefits from
June 8, 2014, through the present and continuing? At the hearing on April 16,
2014, the claimant requested temporary partial disability benefits from
September 26, 2013 (the date of accident) through October 18, 2013, temporary
total disability benefits thereafter through November 10, 2013, and temporary
partial disability benefits thereafter and continuing. The June 16, 2014, Opinion,
affirmed by the full Commission, denied any total disability benefits and the

12: 2099 - 16 - 2
requested temporary partial periods in part because of the claimants failure
to market her residual capacity. Thus, at least for the period commencing from
the accident date through the date of the former hearing (not the date of the
closing of the record), the Commission finds the claimant is not entitled to
disability benefits on the basis of res judicata. Therefore, the current
indemnity request recommences as of April 17, 2014, through the present and
continuing. The first medical record preceding April 17, 2014, is from the
University of Virginia Health System, dated March 25, 2014, when the claimant
was complaining of abdominal pain, as her lower back and hip pain related to a
work injury had been stable. She was diagnosed with constipation, and lower
back and right hip pain, which was improving with therapy. No disability was
assigned. [emphasis added] The claimant returned on June 30, 2014, with
some back pain. Referenced is that her court appearance for the workers
compensation matter had been completed, and she had received a lifetime
medical award, and has been able to return to chiropracter [sic] for care with
some improvement in symptoms. No reference was made to disability. She
returned on October 19, 2015, complaining of lower back pain, with the comment
written that she had not been seen since June 2014. Was able to ambulate and
starting to return to her baseline level of functioning in terms of ambulating and
light house work. Then her previous employer stopped covering her PT and was
denied. Has not had PT or other medical care per patient over the past year.
Since stopping PT, has experienced a significant decline in her physical status.
Can no longer sit for more than 2 hours or her [left] leg becomes numb. Walking
causes severe pain that radiates down her leg and still notices the clicking in her
hip when she walks.

Dr. E. Allison Lyons concluded the claimant had lower back pain with
radiculopathy and recommended she return to physical therapy. No disability
was assigned. . [emphasis added] In the absence of any medical
documentation either totally or partially disabling the claimant, the Commission
finds she is not entitled to any requested indemnity benefits.

13: 2099 - 16 - 2
 CLAIMANT RESPONSE:
The Commission consistently used the word disability, yet the Virginia
Code specifically uses the word injured worker. See: Virginia Code
Book where the words INJURED WORKER and DISABLED and
DISABILITY are Defined (and highlighted).

It is still unclear why the Commission uses different words to issue their
judicial Opinions and judicial Orders which are not actually enforced
by the Commission itself, nor recognized within the Medicinal Industry or
Medical Care Provider Community.

STATEMENTS BY COMMISSION:
II. Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law A. Claimants Issues of Review and
Written Statement The claimant filed a request for review on June 15, 2016.
She indicated there were three issues on appeal:
(1) Did the Deputy Commissioner Err by failing to Award Compensation
for Wage Losses due to the compensable injury?
(2) Did the Deputy Commissioner Err by failing to abide by Virginia State
codes as plainly written to base his interpretation, and application thereof,
of the words medical professional and/or panel doctor?
(3) Did the Deputy Commissioner Err by failing to Sanction Employer for
their failure to abide by the Commissions Judicial Order of June 14, 2014
as plainly written, and as Stipulated to, and previously acknowledge by the
Commission?
CLAIMANT RESPONSE:
The Commissioners breached the agreement with Claimant and
Claimants Employer by applying the Commissions internal Rules
APPELLANT APPENDIX pg 17 for its own employees case management
System to the Injured Worker and Claimants Employers Case, when
neither the Injured Worker/Claimant nor the Claimants Employer were
Members of, or Employees of, the Commission.

14: 2099 - 16 - 2
 The Commission thereafter, abrogated their fiduciary duty to perform their
ministerial duties as assigned by the legislative body codified in Virginia
Code known as Workers Compensation Act, by substituting their own
presumed Authorized Authority manifested through their own self created
Administrative Policy, upon which to base their Official Case judicial
Opinions. APPELLANT APPENDIX pg 393-398

STATEMENTS BY COMMISSION:
On June 26, 2016, the claimant requested an expedited review. That request
was denied. On July 15, 2016, the Commission issued a Schedule for Written
Statements on Review advising the requesting party to submit a written
statement by August 15, 2016.
CLAIMANT RESPONSE:
The Commission OFFERED Injured Worker and Claimants Employer an
Expedited Hearing. The parties Agreed. The Commission breached the
Agreement after Accepted by Injured Worker and Claimants Employer
citing its internal Rules took precedence over the Rights of the parties in
Interest to the matter. APPELLANT APPENDIX pg 899, 903

As a result of the Commissions Multiple OFFERS to Injured Worker and

Claimants Employer, which Injured Worker and Claimants Employer
Acknowledged, Accepted and provided CONSIDERATION for PERFORMANCE
of the OFFERS, the Commission breached the Offers causing DAMAGES to
Injured Worker and Claimants Employer.

15: 2099 - 16 - 2
 (E)
THE STANDARD OF REVIEW AND THE ARGUMENT
(including principles of law and authorities) relating to each assignment of error. With
respect to each assignment of error, the standard of review and the argument
including principles of law and the authorities shall be stated in one place and not
scattered through the brief.
STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pro Se does not understand the Instructions what they mean. Pro Se quotes Other
Cases that mean what Injured Workers Claimant feels might be what is being sought.
Pro Se included the Entire Virginia Code with Highlighted sections that are RELEVANT
to THIS case. If it is unclear by The Record that the Appellants assignment of errors
was not properly preserved in the trial court, then Appellant states that good cause and
ends of justice exceptions to Rule 5A:18 are applicable.

This Court aptly summarized our role in relation to the SCC in Northern Virginia Elec.
Coop. v. Virginia Elec. & Power Co., 265 Va. 363, 368, 576 S.E.2d 741, 743-44 (2003):
[T]he Commission's decision "is entitled to the respect due judgments of a tribunal
informed by experience," and we will not disturb the Commission's analysis when it is
"`based upon the application of correct principles of law.'" Lawyers Title Insurance Corp.
v. Norwest Corp., 254 Va. 388, 390-91, 493 S.E.2d 114, 115 (1997) (quoting Swiss Re
Life Co. Am. v. Gross, 253 Va. 139, 144, 479 S.E.2d 857, 860 (1997)).

However, the Commission's decision, if based upon a mistake of law, will be reversed.
First Virginia Bank v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 349, 351, 193 S.E.2d 4, 5 (1972). The
SCC therefore is entitled to deference as to its findings of fact and its procedural and
evidentiary rulings, while questions of law, including the applicability of the VFOIA to the
SCC, will be reviewed de novo. See Level 3 Commc'ns, LLC v. State Corp. Comm'n,
282 Va. 41, 46, 71 0 S.E.2d 474, 477 (2011) (on appeal, the question of whether SCC
properly construed statutes is subject to de novo review)." ...Campbell County v.
Appalachian Pow. Co., 216 Va. 93, 105, 215 S.E.2d 918, 927 (1975).

16: 2099 - 16 - 2
Pursuant to the Commonwealth of Virginias Supreme Court previous rulings, "It is firmly
established that a decision by the Commission comes to this court with a presumption
of correctness. [emphasis added] The Constitution of Virginia and statutes enacted by
the General Assembly thereunder give the Commission broad, general and extensive
powers in the control and regulation of a public service corporation. The Commission is
charged with the responsibility of finding the facts and making a judgment. This court is
neither at liberty to substitute its judgment in matters within the province of the
Commission nor to overrule the Commission's finding of fact unless we can say its
determination is contrary to the evidence or without evidence to support it. [emphasis
added] Campbell County v. Appalachian Pow. Co., 216 Va. 93, 105, 215 S.E.2d 918,
927(1975).

Additionally, the Commission's decision "is entitled to the respect due judgments of a
tribunal informed by experience," and we will not disturb the Commission's analysis
when it is `based upon the application of correct principles of law.' . [emphasis added]
Lawyers Title Insurance Corp. v. Norwest Corp., 254 Va. 388, 390-91, 493 S.E.2d 114,
115 (1997) (quoting Swiss Re Life Co. Am. v. Gross, 253 Va. 139, 144, 479 S.E.2d 857,
860 (1997)).

However, the Commission's decision, if based upon a mistake of law, will be

reversed. . [emphasis added] First Virginia Bank v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 349, 351,
193 S.E.2d 4, 5 (1972). NORTHERN VIRGINIA ELEC. v. ELEC. & POWER, 576 SE 2d
741 - Va: Supreme Court 2003

Injured Worker seeks enforcement of U.S. v Booker, wherein the court stated separate
cases proved that the effect of government employees applying mandatory guidelines,
but when such application thereof by government employees violated constitutional
rights, had to be invalidated in order to allow the statute to operate in a manner
consistent with congressional intent

17: 2099 - 16 - 2
Fraud in the common law sense of deceit is committed by deliberately misleading
another by words or by acts or in some instance - notably where there is a fiduciary
relationship, which creates a duty to disclose all material facts-by silence - in US v.
Panarella (2002)

The Third Circuit has held that where a public official takes discretionary action that the
official knows will directly benefit a financial interest that the official has concealed in
violation of a state criminal law, that official has deprived the public of his honest
services under 18 USC 1346 in US v Monaghan, (2009)

Article I, Section 5, Article III, Section 1 and Article IV, Section 1 are self-executing
constitutional provisions and thereby waive the Commonwealths sovereign immunity
Gray v VIRGINIA SECRETARY OF TRANS. , 662 SE 2d 66 Va Sup Ct (2008)

Title 2.2. Administration of Government Chapter 4. Secretary of the Commonwealth

2.2-419. Definitions
"Anything of value" means:
1. A pecuniary item, including money, or a bank bill or note;
2. A promissory note, bill of exchange, order, draft, warrant, check, or bond given for
the payment of money;
3. A contract, agreement, promise, or other obligation for an advance, conveyance,
forgiveness of indebtedness, deposit, distribution, loan, payment, gift, pledge, or
transfer of money;
4. A stock, bond, note, or other investment interest in an entity;
5. A receipt given for the payment of money or other property;
6. A right in action;
7. A gift, tangible good, chattel, or an interest in a gift, tangible good, or chattel;
8. A loan or forgiveness of indebtedness;
9. A work of art, antique, or collectible;
10. An automobile or other means of personal transportation;

18: 2099 - 16 - 2
11. Real property or an interest in real property, including title to realty, a fee simple or
partial interest, present or future, contingent or vested within realty, a leasehold interest,
or other beneficial interest in realty;
12. An honorarium or compensation for services;
13. A rebate or discount in the price of anything of value unless the rebate or discount is
made in the ordinary course of business to a member of the public without regard to that
person's status as an executive or legislative official, or the sale or trade of something
for reasonable compensation that would ordinarily not be available to a member of the
public;
14. A promise or offer of employment; or
15. Any other thing of value that is pecuniary or compensatory in value to a
person.

"Executive agency" means an agency, board, commission, or other body in the

executive branch of state government. "Executive agency" includes the State
Corporation Commission, the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission, and the
Virginia Lottery.

"Compensation" means:
1. An advance, conveyance, forgiveness of indebtedness, deposit, distribution, loan,
payment, gift, pledge, or transfer of money or anything of value; or
2. A contract, agreement, promise or other obligation for an advance, conveyance,
forgiveness of indebtedness, deposit, distribution, loan, payment, gift, pledge, or
transfer of money or anything of value, for services rendered or to be rendered.

"Expenditure" means:
4. A payment that directly benefits an executive or legislative official or a member of the
official's immediate family

19: 2099 - 16 - 2
 THE ARGUMENT

Employer performed their internal policy compliance tasks one week after the reported
injury and took Employee off duty for 3 weeks. Employer voluntarily paid (gifted)
Employee for lost wages for the two weeks that Employer ordered Employee off duty.
Injured worker made No Claim for lost wages or undelivered benefits at that time.
No financial assistance was Requested or Filed by Injured Worker seeking payment for
lost wages or benefits, because Injured Worker knew Employee did not qualify for any
losses as a part-time employee until working on the job for a full two years per the
Employers Policy and Employers Union Contract.

MARSHA MAINES filed a Claim for Medical Benefits Only with the Virginia Workers
Compensation Commission ONLY AFTER the Commission was notified by Claimants
Employer. The Commission made an Offer to injured worker (pg 43, 44 of VWC Clerks
Table of Contents, and at page 16-19, 478-481 Appellants Appendix) The Claim was
REFILED on 10/29/2013 after the Commission made another Offer to Claimant staing
that in order to preserve you rights, Form A MUST be submitted.

An Evidentiary Trial was held on 4/16/2014 (Transcript at pg 194-317 The Clerks Table
of Contents and 131-300 of Appellants Appendix) and the Result was the unlicensed to
practice law Commissioner drafting an Opinion titled : Award of costs of medical
benefits for all causelly related medical care. (pg 593 - 602 of The Clerks Table of
Contents and at pg 301-310 of Appellants Appendix).

The Employers Insurance company (a third party to Claimant) stipulated to the

Commissioners Opinion in writing, and notified the Commission. (Pg - 603-604 of The
Clerks Table of Contents and at pgs 311-312 Appellants Appendix) then on the 30th
day, the Employers Insurance company (a third party to Claimant) changed their mind
about their agreement to pay costs of medical care as Awarded by Commissioner,
already agreed to in writing, and filed an Appeal to the Full Commission outside of
Virginia Supreme Court Rules (pg 605 of The Clerks Table of Contents and at pg 313

20: 2099 - 16 - 2
of Appellants Appendix). The Breach of Contract between Employer and Employers
Insurance Company as Policy Holder caused additional Injury to Injured Worker by
acting in direct contempt of their Agreement and Notice provided to Commission.
The Commission had Notice of the Employers Insurance Companys Fiduciary
Responsibility to provide payment of costs for all causelly related medical care to
Beneficiary.

Commissioner did not penalize Employer for Breach of Contract, nor Contempt.
Injured Worker then realized that loss of wages and benefits would not enable her to
obtain necessary medical care, since employers Insurance Company was in contempt,
and Commissioner refused to enforce his own Opinion. Injured Worker then enrolled in
a paralegal program at George Mason University using her tax-refund monies to
become more marketable for her Employer and be able to continue to work, but
under ADA guidelines until full physical recovery.

After Employers Insurance Companys refusal to provide Employers Injured worker

medical care to Restore their injured worker to 100% abled, Employer made no ADA
accommodations nor Offered any other Employment to re-assign their Injured Worker to
another position within the company until they released Claimant from Employment.
On 10/29/2014, the Full Commission Agreed with the Original Award Accepting the
Acknowledged Order to Employers Insurance Company by entering another Opinion
agreeing that Employer Insurance Company Agreed to pay costs of medical benefits
in Beneficiary of benefit, Injured Workers favor (pg 756-762, of The Clerks Table of
Contents and 410-416 of Appellants Appendix).

During the years 2014-2016 Claimant attempted to exercise injured workers legal rights
under every single plainly written Commission Rule, Employer Policy, and Virginia
Statutory Code to force the Workers Compensation Commission to perform their
ministerial duty to Deliver the pre-paid government services that the Commission was
created for, in the workers best interests.

21: 2099 - 16 - 2
The Commission refused to enforce its own declared authority, with the first claim
Awarded after circumventing the Discover Procedures that Claimant relied upon to
prove her case. The Commission then refused the Claim of economic losses, multiple
Settlement Offer attempts between the parties, failed to enforce its own policies and
procedures, circumvented due Procedure and Banned Due Process altogether.
The Clerk of the Commission used a presumption that only parties represented by
lawyers are even allowed to be involved in the case, thereby violating the First
Amendment Right of Separation as well as the Private Right to Contract.
In a June 16, 2014 Opinion, the Deputy Commissioner awarded medical benefits
pursuant to Virginia Code 65.2-603 for as long as necessary for reasonable,
necessary, and authorized treatment causally related to the claimants September 26,
2013 low back injury. The Deputy Commissioner denied temporary partial disability
benefits from the date of the accident through October 18, 2013, temporary total
disability benefits from October 19, 2013 through November 10, 2013, and temporary
partial disability benefits beginning November 11, 2013. The defendants requested
review of the decision to award medical benefits, and on October 29, 2014 the
Commission affirmed. Our records also disclose that on June 17, 2014 the Commission
entered a Medical Only Award Order providing for reasonable, necessary and
authorized medical treatment causally related to the September 26, 2013 low back
injury. (pg 2, Opinion by MARSHALL, Commissioner Nov. 21, 2016, The Record
Clerks Table of Contents at pg 1799-1793).

At no time, has the Commission, unlicensed in the profession of practicing medical or

healing arts, ever deposed a single medical professional, even though injured worker
obtained medical care from at least a dozen different doctors, treating physicians,
medical professionals - all duly Licensed in their respective fields, all who rendered
professional independent statements evidenced in the Record as to the dis ability and
limitations of Injured Worker.

At no time, has the Commission, unlicensed in the profession of practicing law, ever
delivered an enforceable Judicial Order, only Opinions; not recognized by the medical

22: 2099 - 16 - 2
community, nor the legal departments of the medical community that provides medical
care.

As a result of the Commissions failure to abide by Virginia Codes, and its reliance on
self-made Rules, some clearly outside the scope of Virginia Supreme Court Rules for
all tribunals in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the benefits assigned to Injured Worker
have not been Delivered. As a direct result of the lack of enforcement of the Medical
Award to pay costs of medical Care, Injured worker was left Injured and in less than
100% able physical state. The lack of Law Enforcement by the Commission and lack
of transmission of the pre-paid benefits Employer paid to its Insurance Company for a
Policy to pay for Workers Compensation Insurance has cause Damage to the
Employer in the form of a less than 100% able former worker that had to be Replaced,
in addition to costs for lost time, and litigation costs.

The unauthorized practice of law by Employers Human Resources employee who

made the sole decision to place the Injured Worker back to full duty because Insurer
denied claim is not relevant to the fact that the Employers breach of contract with their
Insurance Company was not heard by the Commission.

The Commissions mismanagement of the Case, its own internal maladministration and
unauthorized practice of medicine and unauthorized practice of law caused Claimant to
become inflicted with PTSD.

It should not be the role of government to create injury on its citizenry, and for this
reason, Claimant seeks Case Review De Novo.

GLOSSARY
disabled
(adj.) "incapacitated," 1630s, past participle adjective from disable. Earlier it meant
"legally disqualified" (mid-15c.).
disability

23: 2099 - 16 - 2
noun: disability; plural noun: disabilities
a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities.
synonyms: handicap, disablement, incapacity, impairment, infirmity, defect, abnormality;
condition, disorder, affliction
"my disability makes getting into bed a slow process"

Definition of disability in English:

Disability
noun
1A physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities:
children with severe physical disabilities
[mass noun] differing types of disability
2A disadvantage or handicap, especially one imposed or recognized by the law:
the plaintiff was under a disability
Causally
Also found in: Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Encyclopedia.
causal (k'z?l)
adj.
1. Of, involving, or constituting a cause: a causal relationship between scarcity of goods
and higher prices.
2. Indicative of or expressing a cause.
n. A word or grammatical element, such as since or because, expressing a cause or
reason.
caus'ally
adv.
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright 2016
causal
adjective US formal
causal relationship, link, etc.
a relationship, link, etc. between two things in which one causes the other:
Is there a causal relationship between violence on television and violent behaviour?

24: 2099 - 16 - 2
Definition of causal from the Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary & Thesaurus
Cambridge University Press

What is the definition of disability under the ADA?

It is important to remember that in the context of the ADA, disability is a legal term
rather than a medical one. Because it has a legal definition, the ADAs definition of
disability is different from how disability is defined under some other laws.

The ADA defines a person with a disability as a person who has a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity. This includes people
who have a record of such an impairment, even if they do not currently have a disability.
It also includes individuals who do not have a disability but are regarded as having a
disability. The ADA also makes it unlawful to discriminate against a person based on
that persons association with a person with a disability.

Disabilities is an umbrella term, covering impairments, activity limitations, and

participation restrictions. An impairment is a problem in body function or structure; an
activity limitation is a difficulty encountered by an individual in executing a task or action;
while a participation restriction is a problem experienced by an individual in involvement
in life situations. Disability is thus not just a health problem. It is a complex
phenomenon, reflecting the interaction between features of a persons body and
features of the society in which he or she lives.
World Health Organization, Disabilities

In the early 1970s, disability activists began to challenge how society treated people
with disabilities and the medical approach to disability. Due to this work, physical
barriers to access were identified. These conditions functionally disabled them, and
what is now known as the social model of disability emerged.
Coined by Mike Oliver in 1983, this phrase distinguishes between the medical model of
disability under which an impairment needs to be fixed and the social model of
disability under which the society that limits a person needs to be fixed.

25: 2099 - 16 - 2
 (F)
CONCLUSION

In sum, the Commission converted a material issue of fact for its own benefit, to the
detriment of Injured Worker and Claimants Employer, and for the benefit of a third
party, Claimants Employers Insurance Policy Holder by Infringing on the Private Right
to Contract.

The fact that an Employer is statutorily mandated to perform specific Acts to do

business within the Commonwealth of Virginia, such as the following: 1) carry workers
compensation insurance Policy, 2) provide evidence of said Insurance Policy to the
Workers Compensation Commission, 3) Provide Wages and Benefits in exchange for
Labor with its Workers, 4) Ensure its workers a safe work environment, 5) ensure both
state and federal labor codes are complied with, and still be able to Operate a Profitable
Business for its own stake holders, Investors, while creating jobs for the Community
whose Members it employs.

And the fact that a Member of the Community is a worker for the Employer who
purportedly receives the benefits of providing his Labors in exchange with the
Employers Express and Specific Offers of Employment, does not mean the
Commonwealth of Virginia has the Right to interfere with the Employer/Worker
relationship. The Private Right of Contract shall not be infringed.

In this case, the Employer/Worker relationship, and its contract between them, was
tortuously interfered with by the Commissioners (unlicensed professionals) failure to
perform their ministerial duties under The Act ( 65.2-70) and to Deliver the
Commissions fiduciary duty to Enforce the codes as plainly written against Assigned
third party Insurance Policy-Holder. The Employers contract with their Insurance
Policy Provider was breached when the Insurance policy company failed to Honor the
Agreed/Stipulated Order of June 14, 2014. Their Contempt of the Commissions Order
of Award on June 16, 2014 is a material fact Still In Dispute, without Remedy At Law.

26: 2099 - 16 - 2
As a direct result of unlicensed Commissioners un-enforcement of their own Opinions,
the Claimants Employer (the beneficiary of the Ins. Policy) and Claimant were Injured;
not just by the Commissions breach of contract, but the Commissioners failures to
Enforce the Contempt and then to drag out litigation (fail to Resolve Disputes) which
caused additional injury to both Claimants Employer and Injured Worker.

The style of the case should properly be stated as : MAINES/US Airways Group, Inc vs.
NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY/Chartis Claims, Inc. as administered by
AIG.

The issue that Dept of Labor, OSHA, EEOC and/or Other Enforcement entities are not
involved in the dispute between Claimants Employer and Injured Worker, are not
relevant to this case.

This case is about Misrepresentation by the Virginia Workers Compensation

Commission to Injured Worker, Breach of Contract with Injured Worker by the
Commission, Breach of Contract with the Claimants Employer by the Commission for
lack of Enforcement, and the Economic Injuries caused by Commission to both the
Injured Worker and Claimants Employer for failing to transmit and secure the delivery of
Pre-Paid honest government Services as a Public Services Transmitting Utility doing
business in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Injured Worker seeks the enforcement of the payment of all medical costs that Injured
worker obtains from any Licensed Medical Professional in any state or nation-state for
any issue cause-ually Related medical treatment necessary for the lifetime of the
Injured Workers Persons physical and mental homo sapiens needs, in order to secure
its Rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuits of Happiness as Constitutionally
Guaranteed by the Full Faith and Credit of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

27: 2099 - 16 - 2
Injured Worker seeks an Official Wet-Ink Certified Enforceable Contract with
Commonwealth of Virginias government services providers to Deliver said Service in
the form of a single lifetime transferrable membership to any Health/Fitness Facility in
any location to maintain its physical well being, to be transferrable at anytime to any
other Health/Fitness Facility as Injured Worker may seek.

Injured Worker seeks the enforcement of the Claimants Employers Employment Offer
of Wages plus Benefits in the form of this Court ordering that the Private Right to
Contract shall not be infringed and as such, when any Employer registered to do
business in the Commonwealth of Virginia Offers To a worker any specific Rights,
Privileges, and/or Benefits - in exchange for a Workers Labors - the Employer MUST
HONOR their Offer unless the Worker First Breaches the Contract without Notice, or by
intentional cause. When an Employer breaches their Accepted Offer after Consideration
has been provided by the worker, Performance on the Contract is in Dishonor and
Restitution must be provided to the injured worker. Re-Direction or Re-Assignment of
Accountability is not legal cause for Breach of Contract.

Injured Worker seeks enforcement of the Delivery of Employers Offer of Employment,

by their Acceptance of Injured Workers Pre-Delivered Labors in the form of all 14
buddy passes for each of the years post-hire date for a total of 56 one-way
international travel vouchers.

Injured Worker seeks Lifetime Status 1 Domestic Travel benefits for the Injured Worker
and Injured workers stated Family Members (as listed on the Original Employment
Contracts) to Compensate Injured Worker for the Lack of Employers ADA Job Re-
Assignment by Employer post-injury and for Employers Insurance Policy Holders
failure to provide Medical Care, by Employers reliance on third-party insurance to
perform on the Contract between those two parties.

Injured Worker seeks enforcement of the Virginia Workers Compensation Act in the
form of a Sanction against the Workers Compensation Commission, by Order of this

28: 2099 - 16 - 2
Court in the form of monetary Award for Compensation to Restore Injured Worker to
100% Able by Delivery of Payment of the full 500 weeks of Wage Losses as codified in
the Virginia Code (the Act)

Injured Worker seeks Punitive Damages for Commissioners Discretionary use of

internal Rules to govern Commissions Procedures on behalf of the Commissions
Members but erroneously Applied to non-members of the Commission, in order to
abrogate the Commissions fiduciary duties as Offered to Injured Worker, as mandated
to be Delivered to injured workers by the Codes of the Commonwealth of Virginia, as
directed, as the Court deems appropriate.

(G)
THE SIGNATURE

Appellant:
MARSHA MAINES, CLAIMANT
Pro Se,
o/b/o Injured Worker
/S/ MARSHA MAINES

CAV Record # 2099 - 16 - 2

Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission
Tribunal Case # VA00000849138

Appellee
US AIRWAYS GROUP, INC.
NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
c/o Chartis Claims Administrators o/b/o AIG.
Attorney : NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY c/o Chartis Claims
Administrators o/b/o AIG.
ADAM SETH RAFAL, ESQ.
Vandeventer Black LLP
500 World Trade Center
Norfolk, VA 23510
Phone: 757-446-8600
No VSB# listed on Virginia State Bars Website for the Public to View.

29: 2099 - 16 - 2
 (H)
A CERTIFICATE

(which need not be signed in handwriting)

Appellant hereby states:

(1) that Rule 5A:19(f) has been complied with, and
(2) THIS counsel desires to waive oral argument.

the number of words : 7,845

30: 2099 - 16 - 2