Larry G. Elder

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by Genevieve Huffman against her employer Marshalls, Inc., for temporary total disability benefits after she was laid off from light-duty work in 2009 due to an economic downturn. Huffman had previously received permanent partial disability benefits for a 2003 knee injury and had worked light-duty positions at her pre-injury wage until the layoff. The employer argued that her May 2009 change-in-condition claim was time-barred under Code § 65.2-501's one-year limit from the last payment of permanent partial disability compensation. The Virginia Court of Appeals affirmed the commission's award of one week of benefits, holding that Code § 65.2-708 applied because the layoff constituted a qualifying change in the conditions of compensation, providing a longer limitations period, and that Huffman's marketing efforts were sufficient.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Ronald Arthur Tharrington, who was convicted after a jury trial of both grand larceny and larceny with intent to sell or distribute based on stealing a PlayStation 3 game console and pawning it the same day. On appeal, Tharrington contended that the dual convictions for the same course of conduct violated double jeopardy protections against multiple punishments. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the convictions, reasoning that Code § 18.2-108.01(C) expressly states that a violation constitutes a separate and distinct offense, demonstrating the legislature's clear intent to authorize separate punishments alongside other larceny statutes such as Code § 18.2-95. Because the statutory language unambiguously permitted multiple punishments, the court did not need to apply the Blockburger test and found no double jeopardy violation.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved George Spiker, who was convicted by a jury in Louisa County of five counts of using a communications system to solicit a minor, based on online chats he initiated while in Henrico County with an undercover detective posing as a 13-year-old girl living in Louisa County. Spiker appealed, arguing that venue was improper in Louisa County because the offenses were complete when he sent the messages from Henrico. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the convictions, holding that venue was proper in Louisa County under Code § 19.2-244 because the offenses involved electronic contacts that were received there. The court reasoned that the crime of solicitation includes both the sending and receiving of the messages, so the location of the intended impact or receipt supports venue, consistent with analogous precedents from other jurisdictions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved John Andrew-Collins Holcomb challenging the sufficiency of evidence for his conviction under Code § 18.2-60(A)(1) for knowingly communicating a written threat. Holcomb had posted violent lyrics and messages on his MySpace profile directed at his ex-girlfriend Miranda Rollman and her family during an ongoing custody battle and after restraining orders were issued. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the conviction, holding that the posts constituted threats that placed Rollman in reasonable apprehension of death or bodily injury, as evidenced by their explicit content referencing specific incidents and her subsequent actions like moving to a secured home.

criminal lawfamily lawfree speech

This case involved United Airlines appealing a Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission decision that awarded ongoing benefits to former employee Thomas Hayes for a 2004 work-related traumatic brain injury. The employer argued that Hayes’s 2006 car accident materially aggravated the brain injury and that his settlement of third-party claims from the accident without notice prejudiced the employer’s subrogation rights, warranting termination of the award. The Court of Appeals affirmed the commission, holding that the evidence showed the auto accident did not materially aggravate the compensable brain injury and that any prejudice from the settlement related only to other injuries, which did not justify ending benefits for the brain injury. The court credited the treating psychiatrist’s opinion that the claimant’s symptoms remained unchanged and noted that the commission properly exercised its fact-finding role in assessing credibility.

labor & employment

In Simon v. Commonwealth, the defendant appealed his conviction for taking indecent liberties with a child under Virginia Code § 18.2-370 after a ten-year-old girl reported seeing his genitals exposed through a hole in his shorts while he sat in a truck near her school bus on two occasions. The Court of Appeals of Virginia considered whether the trial court should have instructed the jury on indecent exposure as a lesser-included offense under Code § 18.2-387 and whether the evidence proved the required lascivious intent. The court held that indecent exposure is not a lesser-included offense and affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence sufficient because the defendant repeatedly positioned himself near the child, used intentionally modified shorts, returned to the location even after police awareness, and possessed related pornographic materials. This established his intent to expose himself and act with sexual purpose, distinguishing the facts from prior cases with insufficient evidence of intent.

criminal law