City of Richmond-Fire&Emergency,et al. v T.Brandon

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Benton, Bray and Bumgardner
Argued at Salem, Virginia
CITY OF RICHMOND-FIRE & EMERGENCY AND
CITY OF RICHMOND/TRIGON ADMINISTRATORS
OPINION BY
v. 	Record No. 0217-00-2 	JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY
JULY 11, 2000
THOMAS BRANDON
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
Steven M. Traubert (Charles F. Midkiff;
Midkiff & Hiner, P.C., on brief), for
appellants.
No brief or argument for appellee.
Thomas Brandon, claimant, initiated a claim for benefits,
pursuant to Code § 65.2-402, against the City of Richmond. 	In
defending the claim, the city and its insurer, City of
Richmond/Trigon Administrators (appellants), requested the
Workers' Compensation Commission (commission) to issue a
subpoena duces tecum to Dr. Richard Schwartz, an expert witness
designated by claimant, which directed the production of certain
"opinion reports . . . rendered [by Dr. Schwartz] since January
1, 1998 in cases before" the commission, together with specified
"documentary material." 	The deputy commissioner declined to
issue the subpoena, a decision subsequently affirmed by the
commission, and appellants appeal to this Court.

- 2 -
Initially, we note that the Workers' Compensation Act
delegates to the commission "the duty . . . to administer this
[Act] and adjudicate issues and controversies relating thereto."
Code § 65.2-201. 	The commission has, therefore, ruled that it
"has the discretionary authority to allow interlocutory review
of evidentiary or procedural matters [and that] . . . [r]equests
for such interlocutory reviews are usually denied, except for
good cause." 	Hanlovitch v. Chesapeake General Hospital, 75 VWC
293, 295 (1996). 	However, Hanlovitch is applicable only to
proceedings before the commission.
The Court of Appeals is invested with appellate
jurisdiction over "[a]ny final decision" of the commission or
related interlocutory order "(i) granting, dissolving or denying
an injunction or (ii) adjudicating the principles of a cause."
Code § 17.1-405. 	A final decision "'disposes of the whole
subject, gives all the relief that is contemplated, and leaves
nothing to be done by the [commission].'" 	Southwest Virginia
Hosps., Inc. v. Lipps, 193 Va. 191, 193, 68 S.E.2d 82, 83-84
(1951) (quoting Ryan v. McLeod, 73 Va. (32 Gratt.) 367, 376
(1879)).
The order in dispute neither adjudicates the underlying
cause nor relates to an attendant injunction, but simply
resolves an issue arising from discovery incidental to the
claim, clearly an interlocutory determination over which this

- 3 -
Court has no jurisdiction. 	See generally Polumbo v. Polumbo, 13
Va. App. 306, 411 S.E.2d 229 (1991); Weizenbaum v. Weizenbaum,
12 Va. App. 899, 407 S.E.2d 229 (1991); Pinkard v. Pinkard, 12
Va. App. 848, 407 S.E.2d 339 (1991).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, without prejudice to
either claimant or appellants.
Dismissed.