Haywood Riddick v Franklin City Public Works, etal

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Baker, Willis and Bray
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia
HAYWOOD RIDDICK
v. 	Record No. 0301-95-1 	MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY
FRANKLIN CITY PUBLIC WORKS, ET AL. 	OCTOBER 31, 1995
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
Richard E. Railey, Jr. (Railey and Railey, on brief),
for appellant.
Robert A. Rapaport (Knight, Dudley, Dezern & Clarke,
P.L.L.C., on brief), for appellees.
Acting on the application of Haywood Riddick (claimant) for
disability and medical benefits, the Workers' Compensation
Commission (commission) concluded that claimant had failed to prove
a "compensable disease" and denied relief. 	On appeal, claimant
contends that the evidence established an "occupational disease
which is compensable."
During the pendency of this appeal, a panel of our Court
decided Perdue Farms, Inc. v. McCutchan, 21 Va. App. 65, 461 S.E.2d
431 (1995), and revisited in the attendant opinion the definition
of "disease" within the intendment of the Workers' Compensation
Act. 	See also Piedmont Mfg. Co. v. East, 17 Va. App. 499, 503, 438
S.E.2d 769, 772 (1993). 	Because the instant claim was decided
without the guidance of that decision, we reverse and remand this
case to the commission for reconsideration of claimant's condition
as a compensable disease contemplated by Perdue. 	See Virginia
*Pursuant 	to 	Code 	§ 	17-116.010 	this 	opinion 	is 	not 	designated
for publication.

- 2 -
Supermarkets v. George, 18 Va. App. 452, 453, 445 S.E.2d 156, 157
(1994).
In execution of this mandate, the commission shall receive
such additional evidence as it deems appropriate. 	See Washington
Metro. Area Transit v. Harrison, 228 Va. 598, 602, 324 S.E.2d 654,
656 (1985).
Reversed and remanded.