Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Foundry v. Tune

Court of Appeals of Virginia

Decided January 7, 1986No. 0461-85Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMoon, J.

Although I concur with the decision of the majority that the case should be reversed, I feel that we should dismiss the case *304rather than remanding it for further disposition.

A claimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to workers’ compensation. See Connor v. Bragg, 203 Va. 204, 207-08, 223 S.E.2d 393, 396 (1962); Van Geuder v. Commonwealth, 192 Va. 548, 557, 65 S.E.2d 565, 570 (1951). When a litigant fails to meet this burden of proof, the compensation must be denied. See, e.g., Badische Corp. v. Starks, 221 Va. 910, 913, 275 S.E.2d 605, 607-08…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Conner v. BraggSupreme Court of Virginia · 1962
  2. Van Geuder v. Commonwealth, Medical College of VirginiaSupreme Court of Virginia · 1951
  3. Badische Corp. v. StarksSupreme Court of Virginia · 1981
  4. Erie Insurance Exchange v. MeeksSupreme Court of Virginia · 1982
  5. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. A. M. Walkup Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1922

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API