Richard G. Broschinski v Alcoa Building Prod. etal

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Chief Judge Moon, Judges Bray and Annunziata
RICHARD G. BROSCHINSKI
v. 	Record No. 0651-95-3 	MEMORANDUM OPINION*
PER CURIAM
ALCOA BUILDING PRODUCTS 	SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
AND
LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(A. Thomas Lane, Jr., on brief), for appellant.
(J. David Griffin; Fowler, Griffin, Coyne & Coyne, on
brief), for appellees.
The sole issue raised on appeal by Richard G. Broschinski
(claimant) is that the Workers' Compensation Commission erred in
refusing to consider the June 9, 1994 letter of Richard D.
Kolodner, a licensed professional counselor, on the ground that
the letter does not qualify as a "medical report" under the
Workers' Compensation Act ("the Act"). 	Upon reviewing the record
and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is
without merit. 	Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's
decision. 	Rule 5A:27.
In holding that Kolodner's opinion was not persuasive on the
issue of disability, the commission found as follows:
The claimant principally relies on a letter
of June 9, 1994, from . . . Kolodner,
licensed professional counselor. 	However,
this cannot be considered as a medical
report. 	Neff v. Houff Transfer, Inc., VWC
*Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.

2
File No. 165-33-84 (January 31, 1995).
Kolodner is not a physician, and it does not
appear that he has any type of professional
graduate degree. 	Neither do we find any
evidence that his opinion has been
incorporated by any treating physician.
The commission's construction of the Act is entitled to
great weight on appeal. 	City of Waynesboro v. Harter, 1 Va. App.
265, 269, 337 S.E.2d 901, 903 (1985).
The term "medical report" is not defined in Code § 65.2-603
to include reports of licensed professional counselors. 	If the
general assembly intended that the reports of licensed
professional counselors be considered as medical reports it could
have specifically provided for such. 	It did so for
chiropractor's treatment reports. 	See Code § 65.2-603(D).
"While the . . . Act is to be liberally construed for the
employee's benefit, that policy does not authorize the amendment,
alteration or extension of its provisions beyond its obvious
meaning." 	Gajan v. Bradlick Co., Inc., 4 Va. App. 213, 217, 355
S.E.2d 899, 902 (1987).
Based upon the commission's interpretation of Code
§ 65.2-603, we cannot find as a matter of law that the commission
erred in refusing to consider the letter of Kolodner, a licensed
professional counselor, as a "medical report" under Code
§ 65.2-603.
For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.