West Virginia – eNotes: Workers’ Compensation – March/April 2025

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

West Virginia Case Summary

Blackhawk Mining, LLC v. Banks
Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia
2025 W. Va. App. LEXIS 24

Decided: Feb. 28, 2025

Decisions of the Board of Review are evaluated under the highly deferential “clearly wrong” and “arbitrary and capricious” standards pursuant to West Virginia Code § 23-5-12a(b) (2022).

Background

The Claimant was diagnosed with mucormycosis of the brain, which his treating physicians opined was caused by occupational exposure working as a surface miner. The claims administrator rejected the claim for workers compensation benefits based on a finding that the injury was not work-related. Shortly after the Claimant’s death from a brain bleed, his wife applied for fatal dependent’s benefits. This application was similarly denied. The Claimant’s wife protested this Order, and the Board of Review reversed the claim administrator’s order, finding that the Claimant had established the work relatedness of his cerebral mucormycosis infection, and that his wife had then established this infection had materially contributed to his death. Specifically, the Board relied on the clinical opinions of Mr. Banks’ treating physicians, rather than the opinion of a reviewing physician who could not establish causation. The Employer then appealed the Board’s order.

Holding

The Intermediate Court of Appeals applied the standard of review from West Virginia Code § 23-5-12a(b) (2022), which is the “clearly wrong” and “arbitrary and capricious” standard. This is a deferential standard that presumes the Board of Review’s orders are valid, if they are supported by substantial evidence or a rational basis. The Court found that the Board was not clearly wrong in finding that a compensable injury materially contributed to the Claimant’s death. The Board performed a thorough review of the evidence and provided its rationale for how it weighed the evidence in the record, demonstrating its decision was not clearly wrong.

Takeaway

In this memorandum Decision, the Intermediate Court of Appeals reiterates the highly deferential standard by which the Board of Review’s orders are evaluated. The “clearly wrong” standard is a high burden for an appellant to meet. When the Board of Review provides a rationale for its decision based on the evidence of record, it meets this standard.

Questions about this case can be directed to Evan Jenkins at (412) 697-7403 or ejenkins@tthlaw.com.