Case Title: Zackery v. SWCC

Citation: 253 S.E.2d 532

Docket Number: 14282, 14287

State: west-virginia

Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

Date: 1979-04-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
253 S.E.2d 532 (1979) Pete ZACKERY v. SWCC and Frank Sovastion et al. Paul P. SHUFF v. SWCC, and Cedar Coal Co., et al. Nos. 14287, 14282. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. April 10, 1979. Allan N. Karlin, Morgantown, for appellants. No appearance for appellees SWCC and Sovastion, et al., 14287. K. Paul Davis, Davis & Nesius, South Charleston, for appellees SWCC and Cedar Coal Co., et al. HARSHBARGER, Justice: These are appeals from orders of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board denying appellants, Paul P. Shuff and Pete Zackery, the presumption in W.Va.Code, 23-4-8c(b): Mr. Shuff was determined to be eligible for benefits by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. Cedar Coal Company appealed the ruling and the Appeal Board reversed the order insofar as it determined that claimant had been exposed to the hazards of occupational pneumoconiosis in West Virginia for a period of ten years during the fifteen years immediately preceding the date of last exposure. Mr. Zackery's claim for benefits was denied by the commissioner, and the order was upheld by the Appeal Board. The Board held that the claimant was not exposed to the hazards in West Virginia for ten of the fifteen years immediately preceding his last exposure. It read into Code, 23-4-8c(b) the language of 23-4-15b: Code, 23-4-15b deals with nonmedical determinations by the commissioner. It is a procedural statute requiring the commissioner to make certain findings affecting his jurisdiction. Code, 23-4-8c establishes the role of the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board. Part (b) creates a presumption aiding medical proof of occupational pneumoconiosis. It applies only after the commissioner has made his nonmedical findings that claimant has met the time requirements of 23-4-15b. We cannot read into 23-4-8c(b) words it does not have. Its meaning is clear and requires neither interpretation nor in pari materia contortion by inserting in it ". . . in the State of West Virginia" to change the ten-year medical presumption it creates. To do so would contradict "the axiom that the Workmen's Compensation Act is remedial and should be liberally construed in favor of the injured workman [citations omitted]." Dunlap v. State Workmen's Compensation Comm'r, W.Va., 232 S.E.2d 343, 345 (1977). The construction given by the Appeal Board to Code, 23-4-8c(b) ignored this rule which has been consistently followed by this Court. *534 Further, we cannot agree that even 23-4-15b's ten years must be in West Virginia. Our impression is that if any in pari materia interpretation occurred between the two sections, it would be required for interpretation of 23-4-15bwhich is not nearly as clearly written as 23-4-8c(b)and could result in limiting the "in . . . West Virginia" requirement to the "two-in-ten" clause in 23-4-15b.[*] Reversed and Remanded. [*] ". . . [A]s in the case of all other rules of statutory construction, the necessity of applying the rule [that acts in pari materia should be construed and compared with each other] . . exists only where the terms of the statute to be construed are ambiguous, or its significance doubtful." 73 Am.Jur.2d, Statutes § 187 (1974). See also: State v. Epperly, 135 W.Va. 877, 65 S.E.2d 488 (1951).