STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

October 10, 2017 SECURITY NETWORKS, LLC, RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

Employer Below, Petitioner SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

vs.) No. 17-0054 (BOR Appeal No. 2051462) 

(Claim No. 2014016626) 

DAVID R. BARKER, 

Claimant Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Security Networks, LLC, by T. Jonathan Cook, its attorney, appeals the 

decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. David R. Barker, by 

Reginald D. Henry, his attorney, filed a timely response. 

The issue presented in the instant appeal is the compensability of Mr. Barker’s claim for 

workers’ compensation benefits. On September 1, 2015, the claims administrator rejected the 

claim. On July 7, 2016, The Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges reversed the claims 

administrator’s Order and reinstated the claim. This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s 

Final Order dated December 20, 2016, in which the Board affirmed the decision of the Office of 

Judges. 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. 

On November 13, 2013, Mr. Barker seriously injured his shoulder and knee while 

working for Security Networks, LLC. On the same day, Maria Carter, a Human Resources 

Assistant for the employer, signed and completed a “treatment authorization” form that provided 

Mr. Barker’s name, social security number, type of injury, body parts injured, and listed the date 

of injury as November 13, 2013. The “treatment authorization” form was directed to some 

unidentified medical provider and stated that: “This will serve as our request for you to render 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the initial treatment for the above injured employee.” The “treatment authorization” also stated, 

“our workers’ compensation insurance is provided through The Tower Group/CastlePoint 

National Insurance Company.” The “treatment authorization” advised, however: “Please note 

that this letter does not confirm that the injury or condition is covered by workers’ compensation 

insurance. That determination will be made when a CastlePoint claims representative completes 

an investigation.” 

An e-mail dated November 14, 2013, from Security Networks, LLC representative Carrie 

Weisenfield, discussed short-term disability insurance and inquired how long the claimant would 

be off from work due to his injuries. Mr. Barker submitted into evidence a check stub, in the 

amount of $730.11, from Tower Select Insurance Company which lists his claim number and 

references dates of service from September 1, 2014, through September 17, 2014. Mr. Barker 

also submitted a check stub from AmTrust North America, Inc., in the amount of $741.5, for 

temporary total disability benefits for dates of service July 23, 2015, through July 29, 2015. 

On September 1, 2015, AmTrust North America, Inc., the claims administrator, issued an 

Order rejecting Mr. Barker’s claim. The Order stated that AmTrust had not received an 

Employee’s and Physician’s Report of injury form (WC-1), as required by West Virginia Code 

§§ 23-4-1a and 23-4-15. The claims administrator concluded that it did not have any jurisdiction 

or authority to make any rulings regarding the payment or denial of workers’ compensation 

benefits. The Order stated that, “after further investigation, any and all Orders and payment of 

benefits in the claim were clearly erroneous and the result of a mistake and/or clerical error.” Mr. 

Barker protested. 

On July 7, 2016, the Office of Judges found that the claims administrator erred in finding 

that Mr. Barker’s application for workers’ compensation benefits was untimely filed. The Office 

of Judges reasoned that Mr. Barker fulfilled his statutory duty to provide his employer with 

notice that he sustained an injury on November 13, 2013, sufficient to generate an initial written 

notice, “treatment authorization.” The Office of Judges found that the claims administrator 

determined Mr. Barker’s workers’ compensation claim to be covered without the necessity of 

reviewing or considering an Employee’s and Physician’s Report of injury form (WC-1). The 

Office of Judges noted that the e-mail dated January 10, 2014, from Carrie Weisenfeld, 

referenced the Family and Medical Leave Act paperwork and claim forms for short term 

disability, but made no mention that Mr. Barker’s application was deficient because of the 

absence of a completed Employee’s and Physician’s Report of injury form (WC-1). Ms. 

Weisenfeld’s e-mail indicated that Mr. Barker’s claim was approved when she stated, “I also sent 

the bill to Coadvantage so they can coordinate payment with the workers’ comp carrier and pay 

the bill.” The Office of Judges found that the payment of benefit checks issued by 

Tower/AmTrust confirms that Mr. Barker’s workers’ compensation claim was ruled 

compensable based on the processes utilized by CastlePoint, Tower and AmTrust. 

The Office of Judges concluded that Mr. Barker’s failure to file an Employee’s and 

Physician’s Report of injury form (WC-1) is excused in this case. The Office of Judges found 

that there is no evidence that Mr. Barker was provided a form by his employer. Instead, the 

claims administrator ruled on Mr. Barker’s verbal claim under its own processes, which did not 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

include the consideration of an Employee’s and Physician’s Report of injury form (WC-1). The 

Office of Judges concluded that Mr. Barker should not be punished due to the claims 

administrator’s lack of awareness of proper West Virginia claim procedure and the actions that 

they have alternatively taken absent such awareness. The Office of Judges stated that the claims 

administrator obviously accepted compensability of the claim and managed the claim as valid, 

with the payment of both medical and indemnity benefits, for approximately twenty-two months. 

The Office of Judges found that the claims administrator may not create uncertainties in a record 

and then upon achieving awareness of proper procedure two years later seek to benefit from their 

shortcomings. Relying upon Vaughan v. West Virginia Office of the Insurance Commissioner, 

No. 35746 (May 13, 2011) (memorandum decision), the Office of Judges stated that while it may 

be the duty of the claimant to file an Employee’s and Physician’s Report of injury form (WC-1), 

it is not the duty of a claimant to supply and provide the Employee’s and Physician’s Report of 

injury form (WC-1). The Office of Judges concluded that Mr. Barker’s application for workers’ 

compensation benefits was timely filed and held that it is not the duty of a claimant to cure 

insufficiencies in claim processing on part of the claims administrator. 

The Board of Review adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Office of 

Judges and affirmed its Order on December 20, 2016. The Board of Review reasoned that the 

employer and the claims administrator were made aware of Mr. Barker’s injury within the sixmonth statutory period allowed for filing a claim. The employer and the claims administrator 

began managing the claim and benefits were paid. The Board concluded that the claim was 

timely filed. We agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the Office of Judges as affirmed by 

the Board of Review. 

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 10, 2017 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

Justice Robin J. Davis 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Justice Elizabeth D. Walker 

3