Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission Adds Two Deputy Commissioners

Two appointments, two regional posts

The Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission has appointed Adam L. Katz and Jason A. Mullins as deputy commissioners. Both will serve as administrative law judges under the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act and conduct evidentiary hearings. Their appointments place them in roles where disputes are examined through testimony, records and arguments from the parties.

The commission administers the state’s workers’ compensation system, and deputy commissioners serve at the hearing level. Their work concerns claims under the Act, which governs how workplace injury disputes are handled in Virginia. The source identifies two different duty stations: Katz will join the commission’s Richmond headquarters, while Mullins will be based in its Harrisonburg office.

That geographic split gives the appointments a local dimension, though the source doesn’t describe their caseloads or any changes to the commission’s operations. The central point is the function they’ll perform: hearing evidence and resolving matters assigned under the state’s workers’ compensation framework. Those decisions depend on the record presented in each case, rather than on a judge’s prior professional affiliation alone.

Different paths to the commission

Katz joins the commission’s Richmond headquarters after serving in the Virginia attorney general’s office since 2010. There, he represented the Commonwealth in workers’ compensation claims before the commission and the Court of Appeals of Virginia. That work would have brought him into contact with disputes at more than one stage of the state process, although the source doesn’t specify the cases he handled or the outcomes.

Earlier in his career, Katz represented employers and insurers before the Georgia State Board of Workers’ Compensation. The shift from that work to representing the Commonwealth gives his background exposure to more than one institutional perspective. This is more significant than it looks: familiarity with opposing positions can help a hearing officer understand the arguments parties are likely to make, while the appointment itself requires a distinct role centered on evaluating the evidence before the commission.

Mullins will be based in the commission’s Harrisonburg office. Before his appointment, he was a partner at PennStuart, focusing on workers’ compensation defense. He previously represented claimants and employers in workers’ compensation matters across Virginia, giving his career experience with arguments on both sides of these disputes.

That mix may offer practical familiarity with how claims are presented and contested. It doesn’t establish how Mullins will rule, and the source provides no basis for predicting the approach he’ll take as a deputy commissioner. The role changes the nature of the work: instead of advocating for a party, he’ll hear evidence and assess the dispute within the responsibilities assigned by the Act.

What experience can—and can’t—tell us

The appointments bring experience with claims from the perspectives of the Commonwealth, employers, insurers and claimants to the commission’s hearing roles. That breadth is relevant because workers’ compensation cases can involve competing accounts of an injury, its connection to work and the benefits at issue. The source doesn’t describe the legal questions likely to come before either appointee, so those general features shouldn’t be mistaken for details about their upcoming dockets.

In evidentiary hearings, the parties’ positions have to be tested against the material in the case record. That may include testimony and documents, depending on the dispute. A lawyer’s past practice can provide familiarity with common arguments and procedures; it can’t substitute for weighing the evidence in the matter at hand. (And this is the part most people overlook.) Prior representation on one side doesn’t, by itself, show how a judge will treat a future claim.

For people working in Virginia’s workers’ compensation system, the appointments signal new hearing officers with experience across several participant perspectives. What this means for you depends on the case and the evidence presented; the announcement doesn’t state that these appointments alter claim rules, hearing procedures or eligibility for benefits. The numbers here are underwhelming in a useful sense: there are two appointments, and the available information supports a narrow account of their backgrounds and roles.

Implications for the commission

The immediate significance is operational. Two deputy commissioners are taking hearing roles in Richmond and Harrisonburg, adding experienced practitioners to the commission’s adjudicative work. The source doesn’t say whether the appointments will affect hearing schedules, case backlogs or processing times, so any claim about those outcomes would go beyond the available information.

For the parties who appear before them, the relevant measure will be how each case is handled: whether the evidence is considered, the arguments are addressed and the applicable framework is followed. That’s the work of the office. No broader forecast follows from the appointments alone, but the combination of prior perspectives gives both appointees direct familiarity with the kinds of interests that meet in workers’ compensation disputes.