Legal Opinion

Ragland v. MUGURUZA

Court of Appeals of Virginia

Decided December 13, 2011No. 0524114PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BEALES, Judge.

The Workers’ Compensation Commission (the commission) awarded benefits to Walter Muguruza (appellee) for injuries, which resulted from a workplace accident on January 19, 2008. The commission found that Richard D. Ragland (appellant) employed appellee, found that appellant “had three or more regular employees,” and, therefore, found that appellant was an “employer” for the purposes of the Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act). Code § 65.2-101 states that under the Act, “ ‘[e]mployee’ shall not mean ... [e]mployees of any person, firm or private corporation ... that has…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Jones v. ConwellSupreme Court of Virginia · 1984
  2. Hoffman v. CarterCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2007
  3. Peacock v. Browning Ferris, Inc.Court of Appeals of Virginia · 2002
  4. Cotman v. GreenCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1987
  5. Hurt v. CaldwellSupreme Court of Virginia · 1981

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Samuel Paul Jackson v. Ceres Marine Terminals, Inc. and Tokio Marine and Nichido Fire Ins. Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals of Virginia · 2015
  2. Bailey v. HensleyRoanoke County Circuit Court · 2016
  3. Mario R. Mirarchi v. Whistle Stop Hobbies, LLC and The Uninsured Employer's FundCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2013
  4. Paramont Coal Company Virginia, LLC & Summit Point Insurance Company v. Carson VanoverCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2018
  5. The Uninsured Employers' Fund v. Jose A. Zacarias PerezCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2026

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

Powered by the Exa API