Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-603 (2026)

Duty to furnish medical attention, etc., and vocational rehabilitation; effect of refusal of employee to accept

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Pursuant to this section:

1. As long as necessary after an accident, the employer shall furnish or cause to be furnished, free of charge to the injured employee, a physician chosen by the injured employee from a panel of at least three physicians selected by the employer and such other necessary medical attention. Where such accident results in the amputation or loss of use of an arm, hand, leg, or foot or the enucleation of an eye or the loss of any natural teeth or loss of hearing, the employer shall furnish prosthetic or orthotic appliances, as well as wheelchairs, scooters, walkers, canes, or crutches, proper fitting and maintenance thereof, and training in the use thereof, as the nature of the injury may require.

In awards entered for incapacity for work, under this title, upon determination by the treating physician and the Commission that the same is medically necessary, the Commission may:

a. Require that the employer either (i) furnish and maintain modifications to or equipment for the employee's automobile or (ii) if there is a loss of function to either or both feet, legs, hands, or arms and if the Commission determines that modifications to or equipment for the employee's automobile pursuant to clause (i) are not technically feasible, will not render the automobile operable by the employee, or will cost more than is available for such purpose after payment for any items provided under subdivision b, order that the balance of funds available under the aggregate cap of $55,000 be applied towards the purchase by the employee of a suitable automobile or to furnish or maintain modifications to such automobile; and

b. Require that the employer furnish and maintain bedside lifts, adjustable beds, and modification of the employee's principal home consisting of ramps, handrails, doorway alterations, or any appliances prescribed by the treating physician, except for appliances or medical equipment required to be furnished by the employer pursuant to subdivision A 1.

The aggregate cost of all such items and modifications required to be furnished pursuant to subdivisions a and b on account of any one accident shall not exceed $55,000. This limit shall be increased on an annual basis at the same rate as provided in subsection C of § 65.2-709.

The employee shall accept the attending physician, unless otherwise ordered by the Commission, and in addition, such surgical and hospital service and supplies as may be deemed necessary by the attending physician or the Commission.

2. The employer shall repair, if repairable, or replace dentures, artificial limbs, or other prosthetic or orthotic devices damaged in an accident otherwise compensable under workers' compensation, and furnish proper fitting thereof.

3. The employer shall also furnish or cause to be furnished, at the direction of the Commission, reasonable and necessary vocational rehabilitation services; however, the employer shall not be required to furnish, or cause to be furnished, services under this subdivision to any injured employee not eligible for lawful employment.

Vocational rehabilitation services may include vocational evaluation, counseling, job coaching, job development, job placement, on-the-job training, education, and retraining. Those vocational rehabilitation services that involve the exercise of professional judgment as defined in § 54.1-3510 shall be provided by a certified rehabilitation provider pursuant to Article 2 (§ 54.1-3510 et seq.) of Chapter 35 of Title 54.1 or by a person licensed by the Boards of Counseling; Medicine; Nursing; Optometry; Psychology; or Social Work or, in accordance with subsection B of § 54.1-3513, by a person certified by the Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification (CRCC) as a certified rehabilitation counselor (CRC) or a person certified by the Commission on Certification of Work Adjustment and Vocational Evaluation Specialists (CCWAVES) as a Certified Vocational Evaluation Specialist (CVE).

In the event a dispute arises, any party may request a hearing and seek the approval of the Commission for the proposed services. Such services shall take into account the employee's preinjury job and wage classifications; his age, aptitude, and level of education; the likelihood of success in the new vocation; and the relative costs and benefits to be derived from such services.

B. The unjustified refusal of the employee to accept such medical service or vocational rehabilitation services when provided by the employer shall bar the employee from further compensation until such refusal ceases and no compensation shall at any time be paid for the period of suspension unless, in the opinion of the Commission, the circumstances justified the refusal. In any such case the Commission may order a change in the medical or hospital service or vocational rehabilitation services.

C. If in an emergency or on account of the employer's failure to provide the medical care during the period herein specified, or for other good reasons, a physician other than provided by the employer is called to treat the injured employee, during such period, the reasonable cost of such service shall be paid by the employer if ordered so to do by the Commission.

D. As used in this section and in § 65.2-604, the terms "medical attention," "medical service," "medical care," and "medical report" shall be deemed to include chiropractic service or treatment and, where appropriate, a chiropractic treatment report.

E. Whenever an employer furnishes an employee the names of three physicians pursuant to this section, and the employer also assumes all or part of the cost of providing health care coverage for the employee as a self-insured or under a group health insurance policy, health services plan or health care plan, upon the request of an employee, the employer shall also inform the employee whether each physician named is eligible to receive payment under the employee's health care coverage provided by the employer.

F. If the injured employee has an injury which may be treated within the scope of practice for a chiropractor, then the employer or insurer may include chiropractors on the panel provided the injured employee.

Code 1950, § 65-85; 1952, c. 385; 1960, cc. 310, 444, 580; 1964, c. 366; 1966, c. 388; 1968, cc. 377, 660, § 65.1-88; 1970, c. 470; 1972, c. 229; 1973, c. 542; 1975, c. 280; 1980, c. 600; 1982, c. 585; 1983, c. 471; 1987, cc. 455, 475; 1989, c. 540; 1990, c. 789; 1991, cc. 275, 355, 376; 1994, c. 558; 1997, c. 839; 1998, c. 65; 1999, c. 780; 2000, cc. 473, 1018; 2004, c. 271; 2011, c. 656; 2017, c. 491; 2022, c. 213.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 215 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Gray v. Graves Mountain Lodge, Inc., 494 S.E.2d 866 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gray v. Graves Mountain Lodge, Inc., 494 S.E.2d 866 (Va. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 54× “1 Gray argues that subsections (A) and (D) of Code § 65.2-603, read together, manifestly declare that a chiropractor is not a physician under the Act.”

Vital Link, Inc. & Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Denzil B. Hope, 814 S.E.2d 537 (Va. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 9× “2d at 482 (quoting Code § 65.2-603(A)(1)) (alterations in original).”

Portsmouth (City Of) Sch. Bd. v. Harris, 712 S.E.2d 23 (Va. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 18× “2d at 906 ; accord Code § 65.2-603. 5 We will uphold the commission’s factual findings if they are supported by credible evidence.”

H.J. Holz & Son, Inc. v. Dumas-Thayer, 561 S.E.2d 7 (Va. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 12× “Code § 65.2-603 (emphases added). We have held, under the “other good reasons” test of Code § 65.”

Shenandoah Prods., Inc. v. Whitlock, 421 S.E.2d 483 (Va. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 16× “1-88 (now Code § 65.2-603). Brenda Sue Whitlock suffered a compensable lower back injury on March 2, 1987.”

Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Rose, 509 S.E.2d 525 (Va. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 12× “Code § 65.2-603, which requires an employer to provide necessary medical attention to an employee injured in an industrial accident, also provides that when the employee unjustifiably refuses to accept such medical *529 services the employee shall be barred "from further…”

Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., n/k/a, etc. v. Wardell Orthopaedics, P.C., 796 S.E.2d 461 (Va. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 10× “” NNSB argues that when an employer presents its injured employee with a valid panel offer, the employer can only be held liable for a claimant’s treatment if that claimant used an authorized panel physician, absent an order from the Commission or other exception circumstances.”

Rose E. Yahner v. Fire-X Corp. & Commonwealth Contractors Grp. Self-Ins. Ass'n, 826 S.E.2d 888 (Va. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “Guinand, a spine specialist, treated the claimant's back injury with a course of prescribed medications and physical therapy. The claimant's injury improved significantly under Guinand's care, but ultimately her progress with him plateaued.”

Virginia Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ./Commonwealth of Virginia v. Julio Emilio Posada, 622 S.E.2d 762 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 10× “the commission erred in finding: (1) that it unreasonably defended its failure to pay medical benefits pursuant to an existing award; (2) that a 2003 agreement *154 between the parties to increase Melanie Davis’ weekly 24-hour attendant care compensation rate was a valid…”

Lynchburg Foundry Co. v. Goad, 427 S.E.2d 215 (Va. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 9× “Specifically, the employer contends that the full commission erred in finding that the home nursing care authorized by appellee’s doctor was “necessary” as required by Code § 65.2-603. It also claims that the commission erred in awarding attorney’s fees to appellee.”

Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc., n/k/a, etc. v. Wardell Orthopaedics, P.C., 796 S.E.2d 469 (Va. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 10× “” The joint petition asserted, “Employer shall be responsible for medical treatment pursuant to Section 65.2-603 incurred by the Claimant through the date of the entry of the Order approving the settlement and the Claimant shall be responsible for any and all medical expenses or…”

Cris R. Anderson v. Cris R. Anderson, d/b/a Anderson Plumbing & Firstcomp Ins. Co., 778 S.E.2d 132 (Va. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “” Code § 65.2-603(A)(3). *362 Such services “include vocational evaluation, counseling, job coaching, job development, job placement, on-the-job training, education, and retraining.”

Show all 215 citing cases →

— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-603(A) — 14 cases

Gray v. Graves Mountain Lodge, Inc., 494 S.E.2d 866 (Va. Ct. App. 1998). “1 Gray argues that subsections (A) and (D) of Code § 65.2-603, read together, manifestly declare that a chiropractor is not a physician under the Act.”

Rose E. Yahner v. Fire-X Corp. & Commonwealth Contractors Grp. Self-Ins. Ass'n, 826 S.E.2d 888 (Va. Ct. App. 2019). “Guinand, a spine specialist, treated the claimant's back injury with a course of prescribed medications and physical therapy. The claimant's injury improved significantly under Guinand's care, but ultimately her progress with him plateaued.”

Bahman Haftsavar v. All Am. Carpet & Rugs, Inc. & Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 721 S.E.2d 804 (Va. Ct. App. 2012).

Miller v. Potomac Hosp. Found., 653 S.E.2d 592 (Va. Ct. App. 2007).

Combustion Eng'g, etc. v. Ernest Lafon, 468 S.E.2d 698 (Va. Ct. App. 1996).

— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-603(A)(1) — 42 cases

Vital Link, Inc. & Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Denzil B. Hope, 814 S.E.2d 537 (Va. Ct. App. 2018). “2d at 482 (quoting Code § 65.2-603(A)(1)) (alterations in original).”

H.J. Holz & Son, Inc. v. Dumas-Thayer, 561 S.E.2d 7 (Va. Ct. App. 2002). “Code § 65.2-603 (emphases added). We have held, under the “other good reasons” test of Code § 65.”

Prophet v. Bullock Corp., 718 S.E.2d 477 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).

Uninsured Emp.'s Fund v. Wilson, 619 S.E.2d 476 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).

— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-603(A)(3) — 16 cases

Cris R. Anderson v. Cris R. Anderson, d/b/a Anderson Plumbing & Firstcomp Ins. Co., 778 S.E.2d 132 (Va. Ct. App. 2015). “” Code § 65.2-603(A)(3). *362 Such services “include vocational evaluation, counseling, job coaching, job development, job placement, on-the-job training, education, and retraining.”

Portsmouth (City Of) Sch. Bd. v. Harris, 712 S.E.2d 23 (Va. Ct. App. 2011). “2d at 906 ; accord Code § 65.2-603. 5 We will uphold the commission’s factual findings if they are supported by credible evidence.”

LKQ Corp. & CCMSI v. Joseph Galarreta Morales (Va. Ct. App. 2023).

Robert A. Irwin v. Contemporary Woodcrafts, etc. (Va. Ct. App. 1999).

Big Lots Stores, Inc. & v. Judy Diane Browning (Va. Ct. App. 2010).

— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-603(A)(l) — 5 cases

H.J. Holz & Son, Inc. v. Dumas-Thayer, 561 S.E.2d 7 (Va. Ct. App. 2002). “Code § 65.2-603 (emphases added). We have held, under the “other good reasons” test of Code § 65.”

ARA Servs. v. Swift, 468 S.E.2d 682 (Va. Ct. App. 1996).

Papco Oil Co. v. William Kenneth Farr, 492 S.E.2d 858 (Va. Ct. App. 1997).

— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-603(B) — 32 cases

Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., n/k/a, etc. v. Wardell Orthopaedics, P.C., 796 S.E.2d 461 (Va. Ct. App. 2017). “” NNSB argues that when an employer presents its injured employee with a valid panel offer, the employer can only be held liable for a claimant’s treatment if that claimant used an authorized panel physician, absent an order from the Commission or other exception circumstances.”

Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Rose, 509 S.E.2d 525 (Va. Ct. App. 1999). “Code § 65.2-603, which requires an employer to provide necessary medical attention to an employee injured in an industrial accident, also provides that when the employee unjustifiably refuses to accept such medical *529 services the employee shall be barred "from further…”

Lynchburg Foundry Co. v. Goad, 427 S.E.2d 215 (Va. Ct. App. 1993). “Specifically, the employer contends that the full commission erred in finding that the home nursing care authorized by appellee’s doctor was “necessary” as required by Code § 65.2-603. It also claims that the commission erred in awarding attorney’s fees to appellee.”

Shenandoah Prods., Inc. v. Whitlock, 421 S.E.2d 483 (Va. Ct. App. 1992). “1-88 (now Code § 65.2-603). Brenda Sue Whitlock suffered a compensable lower back injury on March 2, 1987.”

— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-603(C) — 22 cases

Vital Link, Inc. & Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Denzil B. Hope, 814 S.E.2d 537 (Va. Ct. App. 2018). “2d at 482 (quoting Code § 65.2-603(A)(1)) (alterations in original).”

Shenandoah Prods., Inc. v. Whitlock, 421 S.E.2d 483 (Va. Ct. App. 1992). “1-88 (now Code § 65.2-603). Brenda Sue Whitlock suffered a compensable lower back injury on March 2, 1987.”

H.J. Holz & Son, Inc. v. Dumas-Thayer, 561 S.E.2d 7 (Va. Ct. App. 2002). “Code § 65.2-603 (emphases added). We have held, under the “other good reasons” test of Code § 65.”

Marriott Int'l, Inc. v. Carter, 539 S.E.2d 738 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).

— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-603(D) — 2 cases

Richard G. Broschinski v. Alcoa Bldg. Prod. etal (Va. Ct. App. 1995).

— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-603(b) — 1 case

City of Norfolk Sch. Bd. v. Mildred Denise Vaughan (Va. Ct. App. 2012).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.