Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2010

Mark T. Jenkins v. St. Brides Correctional Center/Commonwelath of Virginia

Mark T. Jenkins v. St. Brides Correctional Center/Commonwelath of Virginia
Court of Appeals of Virginia · Decided October 12, 2010

Mark T. Jenkins v. St. Brides Correctional Center/Commonwelath of Virginia

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Elder, Beales and Senior Judge Annunziata

MARK T. JENKINS MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1206-10-1 PER CURIAM OCTOBER 12, 2010 ST. BRIDES CORRECTIONAL CENTER/ COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Paulette D. Franklin-Jenkins; Eric O. Moody & Associates, on brief), for appellant.

(Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General; Wesley G. Russell, Jr., Deputy Attorney General; Peter R. Messitt, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Cheryl A. Wilkerson, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Adam L. Katz, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Mark T. Jenkins (claimant) appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding (1) pinguecula and conjunctivochalasia were not compensable as ordinary diseases of life or occupational diseases because they resulted from cumulative exposure to ultraviolet exposure; and (2) appellant began cutting grass on Saturdays at noon. Claimant also asserts the commission erred in its understanding of his work on “inside grounds.” Finally, claimant asserts the commission erred in failing to consider a “tip card” and fact sheets produced by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) as official government documents to help establish his disability. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Jenkins v. Saint Brides Correctional Center, VWC * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.

File No. 240-68-71 (May 5, 2010). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.

-2-

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.