## Facts

- Larry I. Hunt injured his right knee in 1993 while working at a Ford assembly plant; Ford accepted the injury as compensable.
- Treating physician Dr. Sheldon Cohn imposed restrictions (including no crawling, squatting, or heavy lifting), and Hunt initially received temporary total disability benefits for a short period in 1993.
- Hunt underwent arthroscopic knee surgery in October 1993 and later returned to limited duty with ongoing and evolving restrictions, including limits on standing and walking.
- By April 1995, Dr. Cohn diagnosed right-knee arthrosis and stated that Hunt’s “present condition” was not related to the work injury, but he continued to attribute certain permanent activity restrictions (e.g., no squatting, crawling, or climbing) to the work injury and attributed stricter standing limits mainly to arthritic changes.
- A second physician, Dr. Michael T. Longstreet, opined Hunt did not have arthritis and that Hunt’s knee condition was entirely work-related.
- Ford could not accommodate the combined restrictions, and Hunt sought other employment by contacting potential employers, checking newspaper ads, and keeping a log of contacts.
- In April 1996, Hunt obtained lower-paying work within his restrictions as a painter’s assistant and sought temporary partial disability benefits based on wage loss.

## Issues

1. Whether credible evidence supported the finding that Hunt’s post-injury restrictions and partial disability remained causally related, at least in part, to the compensable knee injury despite evidence of non-work-related arthrosis.
2. Whether the Commission properly applied the “two causes” rule to award benefits where disability resulted from both work-related and non-work-related causes.
3. Whether Hunt reasonably marketed his residual work capacity for the period in which temporary partial disability benefits were awarded.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Commission’s award.
- The court held credible evidence supported the Commission’s finding that Hunt’s disability had two causes—one industrial and one non-industrial—and that the work injury remained a contributing cause.
- The court upheld application of the “two causes” rule, making the resulting disability compensable.
- The court upheld the Commission’s finding that Hunt adequately marketed his residual work capacity and that his post-April 1996 wage loss supported temporary partial disability benefits.

## Legal Principles

- When a disability has both work-related and non-work-related causes, the disability is compensable if the work-related cause remains a contributing factor; full benefits may be allowed under Virginia’s “two causes” rule.
- The Workers’ Compensation Commission is the fact finder on causation and credibility; appellate review is limited to whether credible evidence supports the Commission’s findings, and the court will not reweigh evidence.
- A claimant seeking partial disability benefits must make a reasonable effort to market remaining work capacity; the reasonableness of the effort is a factual determination for the Commission.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a temporary partial disability award because the Commission could reasonably find that Hunt’s work injury continued to contribute to his knee-related restrictions even alongside a non-work-related condition, and because Hunt’s documented job search and eventual lower-paying reemployment satisfied the duty to market residual capacity.


Ford Motor Co. v. Hunt, 26 Va. App. 231, 494 S.E.2d 152 (Ct. App. 1997)