Issue link: http://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/83215
4. Finally, the Commission will not accept a change in condition application under Virginia Code Section 65.2-708 unless it is filed within two years from the date compensation was last paid pursuant to an award. This section most commonly becomes an issue where compensation benefits were not properly terminated following a return to work. Under this part of the Rule, if the return to work was more than two years prior to the filing of the Application, then compensation must be paid to that point in order to obtain redress through the Commission. If you have any questions about compliance with this Rule, we encourage you to call, rather than risk rejection of your Application. We also encourage you to review this Rule every time you file an Application to ensure compliance. B. Changes in Condition The Act defines a change in condition as "a change in the physical condition of the employee as well as any change in the conditions under which compensation was awarded, suspended, or terminated which would affect the right to, amount of, or duration of compensation." 1. Any number of events can act as a change in condition. Perhaps the most common example is a change in the employee's physical condition or a change in a doctor's opinion as to disability. Other changes include incarceration following sentencing and conviction of a crime, termination of dependency, a change in earnings, refusal of selective employment, refusal of medical treatment, and failure to cooperate with vocational rehabilitation. 2. A request to suspend an award based on a claimant's failure to provide a valid residential address under Virginia Code Section 65.2-711 is not a change in condition application; therefore, compensation does not have to be paid through the date of filing. The same is true for credit requests. C. Burden of Proof As the proponent of an Application for Hearing, the employer carries the burden of proof on the issues alleged. The burden in all cases pending on an Employer's Application for Hearing (except those alleging fraud) is a preponderance of the evidence. Allegations of fraud require proof under the clear and convincing evidence standard.