Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-708 (2026)

Review of award on change in condition

✓ current as of May 2026

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

A. Upon its own motion or upon the application of any party in interest, on the ground of a change in condition, the Commission may review any award of compensation and on such review may make an award ending, diminishing or increasing the compensation previously awarded, subject to the maximum or minimum provided in this title, and shall immediately send to the parties a copy of the award. No application filed by a party alleging a change in condition shall be docketed for hearing by the Commission unless any medical reports upon which the party is relying are submitted to the Commission. No such review shall affect such award as regards any moneys paid except pursuant to §§ 65.2-712, 65.2-1105, and 65.2-1205. No such review shall be made after 24 months from the last day for which compensation was paid, pursuant to an award under this title, except: (i) 36 months from the last day for which compensation was paid shall be allowed for the filing of claims payable under § 65.2-503 and certain claims under subsection B of § 65.2-406 or (ii) 24 months from the day that the claimant undergoes any surgical procedure compensable under § 65.2-603 to repair or replace a prosthesis or orthosis.

B. In those cases where no compensation has been paid, the Commission may make an award under § 65.2-503 within 36 months from the date of the accident.

C. All wages paid, for a period not exceeding 24 consecutive months, to an employee (i) who is physically unable to return to his pre-injury work due to a compensable injury and (ii) who is provided work within his capacity at a wage equal to or greater than his pre-injury wage shall be considered compensation paid pursuant to an award for compensation but shall not result in a reduction of the maximum number of weeks of compensation benefits as described in §§ 65.2-500 and 65.2-518.

Code 1950, § 65-95; 1964, c. 209; 1968, c. 660, § 65.1-99; 1972, c. 229; 1975, c. 365; 1977, cc. 345, 380; 1985, c. 453; 1988, c. 518; 1989, cc. 313, 324, 552, § 65.1-55.1; 1991, c. 355; 2013, c. 445.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 172 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Prince William Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Rahim, 711 S.E.2d 241 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Prince William Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Rahim, 711 S.E.2d 241 (Va. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 226× “Rahim ("Rahim") for light-duty work from January 17, 2007, and continuing for a period of twenty-four months, qualified as compensation paid pursuant to an award under Code § 65.2-708(C), and holding that her claim for temporary total disability benefits filed on October 7,…”

Gordon v. Ford Motor Co., 685 S.E.2d 880 (Va. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 212× “As such, the twenty-four-month limitation of Code § 65.2-708 "is not a statute of limitations in the ordinary sense.”

Ford Motor Co. v. Gordon, 708 S.E.2d 846 (Va. 2011). · cites it 80× “The Code § 65.2-708 change-in-condition/statute of limitations scheme thereby functions, in its entirety, on an award-by-award basis not on what amounts to a hybrid award-by-award/injury-by-injury basis under the commission's construction of the statute.”

Diaz v. Wilderness Resort Ass'n, 691 S.E.2d 517 (Va. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 87× “29,” the commission nevertheless concluded employer’s payment of wages to claimant for light-duty work at a rate equal to or greater than her pre-injury average weekly wage constituted the payment of compensation under the tolling provisions of Code § 65.2-708. It reasoned as…”

Gordon v. Ford Motor Co., 674 S.E.2d 545 (Va. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 186× “The Code § 65.2-708 change-in-condition/statute of limitations scheme thereby functions, in its entirety, on an award-by-award basisnot on what amounts to a hybrid award-by-award/injury-by-injury basis under the commission's construction of the statute.”

Marlin Roske v. Culbertson Co. & Virginia Sur. Co., Inc., 749 S.E.2d 550 (Va. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 36× “, its insurer, and Firstcomp Underwriting Group, the claim administrator, (collectively referred to as “employer”) did not waive the time limitation prescribed in Code § 65.2-708 and that there was no de facto award granted to Roske.”

Prophet v. Bullock Corp., 718 S.E.2d 477 (Va. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 49× “At issue in this appeal is whether the Workers’ Compensation Commission (“the commission”) erred in concluding that a claim for medical benefits, specifically, a prescription for a drug used to treat weight loss caused by another drug, is time-barred under Code § 65.2-708(A). We…”

Collins v. Deparment of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 467 S.E.2d 279 (Va. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 24× “" Claimant asserts that the evidence does not support a finding of mutual mistake of fact and that Code §§ 65.2-708 and -712 prohibit retrospective recoupment of monies paid under an open award.”

Vital Link, Inc. & Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Denzil B. Hope, 814 S.E.2d 537 (Va. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 9× ““Upon its own motion or upon the application of any party in interest, on the ground of a change in condition, the Commission may review any award of compensation and on such review may make an award ending, diminishing or increasing the compensation previously awarded .”

Henrico Pub. Utils. v. Taylor, 540 S.E.2d 501 (Va. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 20× “The employer defended the claim on the ground that Taylor was barred from claiming additional benefits by the two-year statute of limitations established by Code § 65.2-708. 1 The deputy found that a de facto award of benefits existed from March 20 through September 14,1996.”

Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Rose, 509 S.E.2d 525 (Va. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 16× “" However, "[n]o such review shall be made after twenty-four months from the last day for which compensation was paid.”

Paula Smith-Adams v. Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 798 S.E.2d 466 (Va. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 11× “The Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission denied the employee’s right to due process by imposing upon her agreements which had been revoked with the result that she has been denied her property rights under Va. Code § 65.2-708 and Rule 1.2(B) of the Rules of the Virginia…”

Show all 172 citing cases →

— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-708(A) — 84 cases

Prince William Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Rahim, 711 S.E.2d 241 (Va. Ct. App. 2011). “Rahim ("Rahim") for light-duty work from January 17, 2007, and continuing for a period of twenty-four months, qualified as compensation paid pursuant to an award under Code § 65.2-708(C), and holding that her claim for temporary total disability benefits filed on October 7,…”

Gordon v. Ford Motor Co., 685 S.E.2d 880 (Va. Ct. App. 2009). “As such, the twenty-four-month limitation of Code § 65.2-708 "is not a statute of limitations in the ordinary sense.”

Ford Motor Co. v. Gordon, 708 S.E.2d 846 (Va. 2011). “The Code § 65.2-708 change-in-condition/statute of limitations scheme thereby functions, in its entirety, on an award-by-award basis not on what amounts to a hybrid award-by-award/injury-by-injury basis under the commission's construction of the statute.”

Diaz v. Wilderness Resort Ass'n, 691 S.E.2d 517 (Va. Ct. App. 2010). “29,” the commission nevertheless concluded employer’s payment of wages to claimant for light-duty work at a rate equal to or greater than her pre-injury average weekly wage constituted the payment of compensation under the tolling provisions of Code § 65.2-708. It reasoned as…”

Prophet v. Bullock Corp., 718 S.E.2d 477 (Va. Ct. App. 2011). “At issue in this appeal is whether the Workers’ Compensation Commission (“the commission”) erred in concluding that a claim for medical benefits, specifically, a prescription for a drug used to treat weight loss caused by another drug, is time-barred under Code § 65.2-708(A). We…”

— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-708(A)(i) — 3 cases

Janie E. Holman v. Sw. Virginia Mental, et (Va. Ct. App. 1999).

Ashley W. Reid v. Controlled Conditions Corp (Va. Ct. App. 2002).

Lolita Renee Howard v. Cost Plus World Mkt. & Fed. Ins. Co. (Va. Ct. App. 2011).

— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-708(A)(ii) — 1 case

Kathryn M. Saffert v. Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 720 S.E.2d 139 (Va. Ct. App. 2012).

— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-708(B) — 9 cases

Lynchburg Foundry Co. v. McDaniel, 469 S.E.2d 85 (Va. Ct. App. 1996).

Nicholas Maldonado v. Fed. Express Corp. (Va. Ct. App. 2017).

Target Corp. & Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs. v. Wilma Velasquez (Va. Ct. App. 2013).

Medinsights & Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Sandra L. Kisner (Va. Ct. App. 2006).

Mirna Rivera v. Kohl's Dep't Stores, Inc. & New Hampshire Ins. Co. (Va. Ct. App. 2018).

— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-708(C) — 28 cases

Gordon v. Ford Motor Co., 685 S.E.2d 880 (Va. Ct. App. 2009). “As such, the twenty-four-month limitation of Code § 65.2-708 "is not a statute of limitations in the ordinary sense.”

Gordon v. Ford Motor Co., 674 S.E.2d 545 (Va. Ct. App. 2009). “The Code § 65.2-708 change-in-condition/statute of limitations scheme thereby functions, in its entirety, on an award-by-award basisnot on what amounts to a hybrid award-by-award/injury-by-injury basis under the commission's construction of the statute.”

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.