Whitt & Del Bueno strives for excellence in personal attention to our clients. Whether recommending a course of action for litigation, providing a case status update, or simply being accessible for consultation, we recognize that attorney-client communication on a regular basis is of utmost importance.
We are dedicated to obtaining the best possible outcomes for our clients at the initial trial level and appellate stage. We analyze the strengths and weaknesses of each individual case. Our clients know that we will always give them straight, unbiased opinions—even if it means deciding not to pursue further litigation.
Our litigation experience, reputation in the legal community, and relationships with other attorneys and the courts allow us to provide the highest quality legal representation for our clients. Our firm size allows us to react quickly, forge personal relationships with our clients, and be easily accessible at a moment’s notice.
Ralph Whitt – Thirty Years; Still Going Strong!
We are proud to announce that 2011 marks Ralph’s thirtieth year of practicing law in Virginia. “I can’t believe it’s thirty years, it only feels like twenty-nine,” joked Ralph when recently revisiting some of the memorable times of his career. We are sure that there will be many more to come, as Ralph continues on with the same spirit, ethic and experience that has served him so well over the course of his distinguished tenure. What a long, strange trip, indeed!
Court of Appeals Reverses Itself in Hively: Claimant Not Entitled to Any TPD under Favinger
I wrote to you earlier this year (“Seven Cases Worth Knowing About”) regarding the case of Ross & Sons Utility v. Hively, an unpublished opinion in which the Court of Appeals found that the claimant had not marketed the extra hours his regular employment involved, but instead of holding that the claimant was not entitled to any temporary partial disability benefits under the Supreme Court decision in Ford Motor Co. v. Favinger, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Commission to calculate how much in compensation the claimant was entitled to under the circumstances. The employer requested that the panel of the Court of Appeals reconsider, and it did, reversing itself as to the remedy only and affirming the principle in Favinger that if a claimant fails to fully market his wages or his hours, he is not entitled to any compensation benefits during the period of refusal. This is a welcome sign that the Court of Appeals still recognizes what Favinger means, although it may have to be reminded from time to time.