STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

FILED 

ST. MARY’S MEDICAL CENTER, INC., September 10, 2013 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK Employer Below, Petitioner SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

vs.) No. 11-1707 (BOR Appeal No. 2045965) 

(Claim No. 2009086501) 

ELIZABETH J. DINGESS, 

Claimant Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner St. Mary’s Medical Center, Inc., by H. Toney Stroud, its attorney, appeals the 

decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated November 16, 2011, in 

which the Board affirmed a May 9, 2011, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges. 

In its Order, the Office of Judges reversed the claims administrator’s April 21, 2009, decision 

rejecting Ms. Dingess’s application for workers’ compensation benefits. 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. 

Ms. Dingess worked as a licensed practical nurse for St. Mary’s Medical Center. On 

March 22, 2009, she allegedly strained her back while lifting a patient. On April 21, 2009, the 

claims administrator determined there was no injury in the course and scope of employment. 

The Office of Judges reversed the claims administrator’s decision and held the claim 

compensable for lumbar sprain. On appeal, St. Mary’s Medical Center disagrees and asserts that 

Ms. Dingess has a proven history of chronic back pain and degenerative disc disease, and cannot 

prove that she incurred a new injury on March 22, 2009. 

The Office of Judges concluded that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that 

Ms. Dingess did suffer an isolated and fortuitous event on March 22, 2009. The Office of Judges 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

based its conclusion on Dr. Young’s April 3, 2009, diagnosis of a lumbar sprain, and that she did 

not have any active back problems until the day of the alleged incident. The Office of Judges 

determined that Ms. Dingess did not seek treatment for back pain from 1999 to 2007 and from 

September of 2007 until March of 2009 when the alleged incident occurred. The Office of 

Judges reasoned that even though Ms. Dingess had a history of back pain and treatment, she was 

not currently suffering or receiving treatment for the back pain at the time of her work-related 

injury. The Board of Review reached the same reasoned conclusions in its decision of November 

16, 2011. We agree with the reasoning and conclusions of 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: September 10, 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 

2