Whitt & Del Bueno strives for excellence in personal attention to our clients. Whether recommending a course of action for litigation, providing a case status update, or simply being accessible for consultation, we recognize that attorney-client communication on a regular basis is of utmost importance.
We are dedicated to obtaining the best possible outcomes for our clients at the initial trial level and appellate stage. We analyze the strengths and weaknesses of each individual case. Our clients know that we will always give them straight, unbiased opinions—even if it means deciding not to pursue further litigation.
Our litigation experience, reputation in the legal community, and relationships with other attorneys and the courts allow us to provide the highest quality legal representation for our clients. Our firm size allows us to react quickly, forge personal relationships with our clients, and be easily accessible at a moment’s notice.
EDI Update
As you may know, the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission is currently advancing its technological capabilities to streamline its claims administration and handling. Through EDI, or electronic data interchange, the Commission will be able to process claims information electronically from insurance companies, self-insured and self-administered employers, and third party administrators.
DEFENDING HEART/LUNG/CANCER PRESUMPTION CLAIMS
Some of the most arcane and difficult workers’ compensation claims to defend are those arising under the presumption in Code § 65.2-402, otherwise known as the “heart/lung” presumption. The key to defending these types of claims is having a thorough understanding of the complex legal and medical issues presented. These remain difficult claims to defend successfully. Nevertheless, it is possible to defend many presumption claims, particularly if one knows where to look.
A Short Employment May Be Defensible
Once applicable, the presumption in Code § 65.2-402 may only be overcome by the employer if it proves by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the disease resulted from a specific non-work related cause and (2) that the disease was not caused by the employment. Both prongs of the test must be met by the employer to successfully rebut the presumption.
Virginia courts have rejected the notion that the employer must “exclude” the possibility that the employment was a cause. Rather, the question is whether the employment probably was a contributing cause of the disease. If the employee only worked a few months or years after being hired before the heart disease was discovered, then many cardiologists take the position that that particular employee did not work in the occupation long enough for the job to be a factor in his heart disease because heart disease typically takes many years or decades to develop and progress. In some cases, this is an issue worth looking into and discussing with the treating cardiologist.