PINPOINT CLEANING SERVICE, INC. v. HENRIQUEZ, 0729-15-4. (2015)
Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia
Number: invaco20150915c98
Visitors: 3
Filed: Sep. 15, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 15, 2015
Summary: UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM . Pinpoint Cleaning Service, Inc. and Phoenix Insurance Company (hereinafter "employer") appeal a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission finding that Daniel Henriquez's (hereinafter "claimant") industrial accident occurred within the course of his employment. Employer maintains that claimant was not performing a task that was incidental to his employment at the time of his injury. We have reviewed the record and the commission's opinion
Summary: UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM . Pinpoint Cleaning Service, Inc. and Phoenix Insurance Company (hereinafter "employer") appeal a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission finding that Daniel Henriquez's (hereinafter "claimant") industrial accident occurred within the course of his employment. Employer maintains that claimant was not performing a task that was incidental to his employment at the time of his injury. We have reviewed the record and the commission's opinion ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
PER CURIAM.
Pinpoint Cleaning Service, Inc. and Phoenix Insurance Company (hereinafter "employer") appeal a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission finding that Daniel Henriquez's (hereinafter "claimant") industrial accident occurred within the course of his employment. Employer maintains that claimant was not performing a task that was incidental to his employment at the time of his injury. 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 Henriquez v. Pinpoint Cleaning Serv., Inc., JCN No. 02000017123 (Apr. 13, 2015). 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.
FootNotes
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
Source: Leagle
