Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Commonwealth v. Bakke

Court of Appeals of Virginia

Decided September 27, 2005No. 2351044Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHaley, J.

I

CONCURRENCE

I concur in the majority’s view “that credible evidence ... supports the commission’s finding that the Program did not present for review the deputy commissioner’s ruling that the evidence was sufficient to entitle the infant to the Code § 38.2-5008 presumption.”

I respectfully dissent, however, to the majority’s view that the Program failed to rebut the Code § 38.2-5008 presumption.

II

THE STATUTE AND THE PRESUMPTION

Succinctly stated, and as here applicable, under the Virginia Birth-Related Neurological Compensation Act (the “Act”), if an infant suffers “ ‘an injury to the brain’…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Morris v. MorrisSupreme Court of Virginia · 1989
  2. Morris v. Badger Powhatan/Figgie International, Inc.Court of Appeals of Virginia · 1986
  3. Conner v. BraggSupreme Court of Virginia · 1962
  4. Island Creek Coal Co. v. BreedingCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1988
  5. Weddle, Administratrix v. DraperSupreme Court of Virginia · 1963

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API