A. In any civil action, where a party, who is a participating hospital or physician as defined in § 38.2-5001, moves to refer a cause of action to the Workers' Compensation Commission for the purposes of determining whether the cause of action satisfies the requirements of the Virginia Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Act (§ 38.2-5000 et seq.), the court shall forward the motion to refer together with a copy of the motion for judgment to the Commission and stay all proceedings on the cause of action pending an award and notification by the Commission of its disposition; provided, however, that the motion to refer the cause of action to the Workers' Compensation Commission shall be filed no later than 120 days after the date of filing a grounds of defense by the party seeking the referral.
B. Upon entry of the order of referral by the court, the clerk of the circuit court shall file with the Workers' Compensation Commission within thirty days a copy of the motion for judgment and the responsive pleadings of all the parties to the action. The clerk shall copy all counsel of record in the civil action on the transmittal letter accompanying the materials being filed with the Workers' Compensation Commission. All parties to the civil action shall be entitled to participate before the Commission upon filing a notice of appearance with the Clerk of the Commission within twenty-one days after receipt of the transmittal letter to the clerk of the circuit court. Notwithstanding the provisions of § 32.1-127.1:03, the moving party shall provide the Commission with an original and five copies of the following: appropriate assessments, evaluations, and prognoses and such other records obtained during discovery and are reasonably necessary for the determination of whether the infant has suffered a birth-related neurological injury. The medical records and the pleadings referenced in this subsection shall constitute a petition as referenced in § 38.2-5004. The moving party shall be reimbursed for all copying costs upon entry of an award of benefits as referenced in § 38.2-5009.
1999, c. 822; 2000, c. 207.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2024 · leading case:
Berner v. Mills, 579 S.E.2d 159 (Va. 2003).
Berner v. Mills, 579 S.E.2d 159 (Va. 2003).
· cites it 16× “In July 1999, pursuant to Code § 8.01-273.1, Dr. Bemer and Primary Care asked the circuit court to refer the Mills’ claims to the Commission to determine whether the Commission had exclusive jurisdiction under the Act to consider the claims.”
Cooper v. Adler, 604 S.E.2d 747 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 30× “On cross-appeal, Potomac Hospital contends Cooper cannot pursue this appeal since she did not give notice of appearance as required by Code § 8.01-273.1. The commission determined that Code § 38.”
Berner v. Mills ex rel. Est. of Mills, 560 S.E.2d 925 (Va. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 6× “Berner and Primary Care contend the commission erred in (1) refusing to apply the April 1, 2000 amendments to Code §§ 8.01-273.1 and 38.2-5001 retroactively to the present case; and (2) granting appellees a double recovery under the Act and the Death by Wrongful Act statutes…”
Women's Healthcare Assocs., Inc. v. Valerie Mucci, 768 S.E.2d 720 (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 6× “The Consideration of Expert Reports for Determining Jurisdiction Standard of Review In their first assignment of error, appellants challenge the commission’s finding that Mucci could offer expert opinions as part of her petition under Code § 8.01-273.1. Pursuant to Code §…”
Jeff Charles Hammer v. D.S., Crystal Senecal, 796 S.E.2d 454 (Va. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “” The claim “is reviewed by a panel of three qualified and impartial physicians drawn from the fields of obstetrics, pediatrics, pediatric neurology, neonatology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, or any other specialty particularly appropriate to the facts of a particular…”
Watson v. Lederman, 83 Va. Cir. 434 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Code of Virginia § 8.01-273.1 granted him leave to file a brief that would serve as an amended demurrer.”
Barton v. Town of Middleburg, 27 Va. Cir. 20 (Loudoun Cir. Ct. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Virginia Code § 8.01-273.1 am of the opinion that a simple assertion of the failure to allege other facts is not a ground for a demurrer.”
Slootmaker v. Perwaiz, 52 Va. Cir. 582 (Portsmouth Cir. Ct. 1999).
· cites it 10× “Accordingly the court views the disposition of the motion as a resolution of these legal issues: does Virginia Code § 8.01-273.1 apply to this case? If so, is the court required to submit the case to the Act? (As noted above, counsel have stipulated the participating status of…”
Loudoun Hosp. Ctr. v. Valerie Mucci, No. 1211144 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 3, 2015).
· cites it 6× “The Consideration of Expert Reports for Determining Jurisdiction Standard of Review In their first assignment of error, appellants challenge the commission’s finding that Mucci could offer expert opinions as part of her petition under Code § 8.01-273.1. Pursuant to Code §…”
Angela C. Bess v. Valerie Mucci, No. 1191144 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 3, 2015).
· cites it 6× “The Consideration of Expert Reports for Determining Jurisdiction Standard of Review In their first assignment of error, appellants challenge the commission’s finding that Mucci could offer expert opinions as part of her petition under Code § 8.01-273.1. Pursuant to Code §…”
Nicola M. Davies v. Latisha Woodard, No. 1316081 (Va. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2009).
· cites it 4× “Based on that status and pursuant to Code § 8.01-273.1, they moved to have the cause of action stayed in the circuit court and referred to the commission for purposes of determining whether the cause of action satisfied the Act, in the apparent hope of limiting Woodard to the…”
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-273.1(A): 2 cases
Cooper v. Adler, 604 S.E.2d 747 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
“On cross-appeal, Potomac Hospital contends Cooper cannot pursue this appeal since she did not give notice of appearance as required by Code § 8.01-273.1. The commission determined that Code § 38.”
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-273.1(B): 4 cases
Cooper v. Adler, 604 S.E.2d 747 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
“On cross-appeal, Potomac Hospital contends Cooper cannot pursue this appeal since she did not give notice of appearance as required by Code § 8.01-273.1. The commission determined that Code § 38.”
Women's Healthcare Assocs., Inc. v. Valerie Mucci, 768 S.E.2d 720 (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
“The Consideration of Expert Reports for Determining Jurisdiction Standard of Review In their first assignment of error, appellants challenge the commission’s finding that Mucci could offer expert opinions as part of her petition under Code § 8.01-273.1. Pursuant to Code §…”
Loudoun Hosp. Ctr. v. Valerie Mucci, No. 1211144 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 3, 2015).
“The Consideration of Expert Reports for Determining Jurisdiction Standard of Review In their first assignment of error, appellants challenge the commission’s finding that Mucci could offer expert opinions as part of her petition under Code § 8.01-273.1. Pursuant to Code §…”
Angela C. Bess v. Valerie Mucci, No. 1191144 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 3, 2015).
“The Consideration of Expert Reports for Determining Jurisdiction Standard of Review In their first assignment of error, appellants challenge the commission’s finding that Mucci could offer expert opinions as part of her petition under Code § 8.01-273.1. Pursuant to Code §…”
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.