1 

 

 STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

CECIL R. SHREWSBURY, 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 11-1757 (BOR Appeal No. 2045992) 

 (Claim No. 2010137036) 

T & N ELECTRIC MOTOR EXCHANGE, INC., 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

 Petitioner Cecil R. Shrewsbury, by Reginald D. Henry, his attorney, appeals the decision 

of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. T & N Electric Motor Exchange, 

Inc., by Patricia A. Jennings, its attorney, filed a timely response.

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated November 30, 2011, in 

which the Board affirmed a May 24, 2011, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of 

Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s June 22, 2010, 

decision, which rejected the claim, because air testing done during Mr. Shrewsbury’s 

employment demonstrated that he was not exposed to the hazards of breathing abnormal 

quantities of dust. The Court has carefully reviewed the records, written arguments, and 

appendices contained in the briefs, and the case is mature for consideration. 

 This Court has considered the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal 

arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided 

by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record 

presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these 

reasons, a memorandum decision is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. 

 Mr. Shrewsbury worked for T & N Electric Motor Exchange as an electric motor 

repairman from March 15, 2004, through June 11, 2008. After he stopped working for T & N 

Electric Motor Exchange, Mr. Shrewsbury filed for workers’ compensation benefits based on his 

exposure to the hazards of occupational pneumoconiosis. On June 22, 2010, the claims 

administrator rejected the claim. The claims administrator’s decision was primarily based on air 

quality samplings which were taken by the employer during the period in which Mr. Shrewsbury 

FILED 

October 24, 2013 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2 

was employed. The claims administrator stated that these samples demonstrated that the air 

quality during Mr. Shrewsbury’s employment was in compliance with OSHA standards for 

permissible exposure levels. On May 24, 2011, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims 

administrator’s decision. The Board of Review then affirmed the Order of the Office of Judges 

on November 30, 2011, leading Mr. Shrewsbury to appeal. 

 The Office of Judges concluded that Mr. Shrewsbury has insufficient exposure to the 

hazards of breathing in abnormal quantities of dust in the course of and resulting from his 

employment. The Office of Judges also concluded that T & N Electric Motor Exchange has 

proven that Mr. Shrewsbury was not exposed to abnormal quantities of dust during his 

employment. The Office of Judges found that T & N Electric Motor Exchange took air quality 

samplings on three separate occasions during the period of Mr. Shrewsbury’s employment. The 

Office of Judges found that the results of each sample were identical and were all in compliance 

with OSHA or industrial hygiene standards for particulate matter and other harmful substances. 

The Office of Judges found that these samples met the requirements of West Virginia Code of 

State Rules § 85-20-52.2 (2006) and demonstrated that Mr. Shrewsbury was not exposed to the 

hazard of breathing abnormal quantities of dust. The Board of Review adopted the findings of 

the Office of Judges and affirmed its Order. 

 We agree with the conclusion of the Board of Review and the findings of the Office of 

Judges. Mr. Shrewsbury has not demonstrated that he was exposed to the hazard of occupational 

pneumoconiosis for the requisite statutory periods. West Virginia Code § 23-4-1(b) (2008). T & 

N Electric Motor Exchange has presented credible samples demonstrating that it was in 

compliance with OSHA’s permissible exposure levels for the period in which Mr. Shrewsbury 

worked at its facility. The only evidence Mr. Shrewsbury has presented to demonstrate that he 

was exposed to the hazards of occupational pneumoconiosis is his own testimony. This is not 

sufficient to demonstrate that he was exposed to the hazards of occupational pneumoconiosis in 

light of the record as a whole. 

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the decision of the Board of Review is not in clear 

violation of any constitutional or statutory provision, nor is it clearly the result of erroneous 

conclusions of law, nor is it based upon a material misstatement or mischaracterization of the 

evidentiary record. Therefore, the decision of the Board of Review is affirmed. 

 Affirmed. 

ISSUED: October 24, 2013 

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Robin J. Davis 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II