STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

February 20, 2013
 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK
 

REBECCA CIVITILLO, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 11-0875	 (BOR Appeal No. 2045207) 

(Claim No. 2006063475) 

WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF
 

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER
 

Commissioner Below, Respondent
 

and
 

GO-MART, INC.,
 

Employer Below, Respondent
 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Rebecca Civitillo, by Samuel Hanna, her attorney, appeals the decision of the 

West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. Go-Mart, Inc., by Timothy Huffman, 

its attorney, filed a timely response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated May 4, 2011, in which 

the Board affirmed an October 21, 2010, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges. 

In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s January 23, 2007, decision 

denying Ms. Civitillo’s request 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. 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Civitillo worked for Go-Mart, Inc. as a retail manager. She alleges that as a result of 

this employment she suffered exposure to benzene resulting in headaches, cough, chronic ear 

infections, upper respiratory infection, sleeplessness, fever, chronic fatigue, and several other 

symptoms. The claims administrator on January 23, 2007, denied her request for workers’ 

compensation benefits. 

The Office of Judges concluded that the preponderance of the evidence did not establish 

that Ms. Civitillo incurred an occupational exposure which resulted in an occupational disease as 

a result of her employment. The Office of Judges noted that a report by Enviroprobe found that 

the results of an evaluation for benzene exposure were less than 1% of the OSHA permissible 

exposure level. It further noted that Ms. Civitillo had previously stated that the symptoms began 

when she received a lumbar epidural. The evidence does not establish that Ms. Civitillo suffers 

from an occupational disease under West Virginia Code § 23-4-1(f) (2008). The Board of 

Review reached the same reasoned conclusions in its decision of May 4, 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: February 20, 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