A. If an application for review is made to the Commission within 30 days after issuance of an award, the full Commission, except as provided in subsection B of § 65.2-704 and if the first hearing was not held before the full Commission, shall review the evidence or, if deemed advisable, as soon as practicable, hear the parties at issue, their representatives, and witnesses. The Commission shall make an award which, together with a statement of the findings of fact, rulings of law, and other matters pertinent to the questions at issue, shall be filed with the record of the proceedings.
B. A rehearing convened under this section shall be a public proceeding and, upon proper request, may, in the discretion of the Commission, be video recorded for public broadcast at the expense of the requesting party, subject only to the same limitations and conditions as apply to court proceedings in the Commonwealth.
C. Upon an application for review made pursuant to subsection A, the opposing party at issue shall have 14 days thereafter to make an independent application for review.
D. When a vacancy on the Commission exists, or when one or more members of the Commission are absent or are prohibited from sitting with the full Commission to hear a review, the Chairman may appoint one or more deputy commissioners or recall one or more retired members of the Commission to participate in the review. The retired member or members recalled shall be the member or members who occupied the seat for which such member or members are being recalled, unless the parties otherwise consent. If retired members of the Commission are recalled as provided in this subsection, they shall be compensated as provided in § 17.1-327.
Code 1950, § 65-93; 1954, c. 450; 1956, c. 79; 1968, c. 660, § 65.1-97; 1980, cc. 600, 606; 1989, c. 318; 1991, c. 355; 1994, c. 289; 1998, c. 95; 2003, cc. 664, 671; 2010, cc. 160, 564; 2012, c. 588; 2014, c. 205.
Notes of Decisions
Peacock v. Browning Ferris, Inc., 563 S.E.2d 368 (Va. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 28× “The commission concluded that the claimant’s request for review was untimely because it was not filed within twenty days of his attorney’s receipt by certified mail of a copy of the deputy commissioner’s opinion, as required by Code § 65.2-705(A). Claimant contends the…”
Clinch Valley Med. Ctr. v. Hayes, 538 S.E.2d 369 (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 13× “The employer argues Code § 65.2-705 3 limits the general powers of the commission to delegate duties to deputies.”
Melvin L. Layne v. Crist Elec. Contractor, Inc. & Assurance Servs. Corp., 751 S.E.2d 679 (Va. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 16× “*643 Indeed, under Code § 65.2-705, the legislature established a procedure by which the commission can act in order to obtain assistance when the need arises by authorizing the commission chair to appoint a deputy commissioner to serve when a vacancy occurs or when a member of…”
Ratliff v. Carter Mach. Co., Inc., 575 S.E.2d 571 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 13× “2-524, read in its entirety, extends the fourteen-day period by an additional twenty days (the review period under Code § 65.2-705). As a preliminary matter, the deputy commissioner determined that under Audobon Tree Service v.”
James Melvin Ashby v. Ramar Coal Co., Inc. & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 622 S.E.2d 230 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 32× “because the Commission entered an award order memorializing memoranda of agreement to which both parties had affixed their signatures---[W]e disagree with the employee’s assertion that the period allowed for review should not apply in the present case.”
Gallahan v. Free Lance Star Publ'g Co., 589 S.E.2d 12 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 6× “By statute, a request for review empowers the commission to hear the case de novo, see Code § 65.2-705; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.”
Commonwealth v. Bakke, 620 S.E.2d 107 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “Although unnecessary in light of our holding, we address for completeness the Program's contention that the evidence "established by a preponderance that uteroplacental insufficiency was the specific non-birth related cause of this infant's cerebral palsy.”
Dustin Hess v. Virginia State Police, 806 S.E.2d 413 (Va. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “” The full Commission cited the testimony of Sergeants Owen and Smith, as well as Hess’s duties, training, and position in its decision.”
Uninsured Emp.'s Fund v. Derek M. Kramer, 526 S.E.2d 304 (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 8× “2-706 provides that "[n]o appeal shall be taken from the decision of one Commissioner until a review of the case has been had before the full Commission, as provided in Code § 65.2-705, and an award entered by it.”
Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-705(A): 34 cases
Peacock v. Browning Ferris, Inc., 563 S.E.2d 368 (Va. Ct. App. 2002).
“The commission concluded that the claimant’s request for review was untimely because it was not filed within twenty days of his attorney’s receipt by certified mail of a copy of the deputy commissioner’s opinion, as required by Code § 65.2-705(A). Claimant contends the…”
Clinch Valley Med. Ctr. v. Hayes, 538 S.E.2d 369 (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
“The employer argues Code § 65.2-705 3 limits the general powers of the commission to delegate duties to deputies.”
Dustin Hess v. Virginia State Police, 806 S.E.2d 413 (Va. Ct. App. 2017).
“” The full Commission cited the testimony of Sergeants Owen and Smith, as well as Hess’s duties, training, and position in its decision.”
Gallahan v. Free Lance Star Publ'g Co., 589 S.E.2d 12 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
“By statute, a request for review empowers the commission to hear the case de novo, see Code § 65.2-705; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.”
Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-705(C): 1 case
Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-705(D): 4 cases
Melvin L. Layne v. Crist Elec. Contractor, Inc. & Assurance Servs. Corp., 751 S.E.2d 679 (Va. Ct. App. 2013).
“*643 Indeed, under Code § 65.2-705, the legislature established a procedure by which the commission can act in order to obtain assistance when the need arises by authorizing the commission chair to appoint a deputy commissioner to serve when a vacancy occurs or when a member of…”
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.