STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

April 14, 2014 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

LOUISE FRANK, WIDOW OF SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

CLARENCE S. FRANK (DECEASED), 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 12-1247 (BOR Appeal No. 2047042) 

(Claim No. 2008049083) 

ALCAN ROLLED PRODUCTS – RAVENSWOOD, LLC, 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Louise Frank, widow of Clarence S. Frank, by Robert M. Williams, her 

attorney, appeals the decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. 

Alcan Rolled Products – Ravenswood, LLC, by H. Toney Stroud, its attorney, filed a timely 

response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated September 20, 2012, in 

which the Board affirmed a March 13, 2012, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of 

Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s April 15, 2009, 

decision denying Mrs. Frank’s request for dependent’s benefits relating to her husband’s death. 

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. Frank worked for Alcan Rolled Products as an aluminum plant worker. On August 9, 

2007, he died. Following his death, Kelli A. Cawley, M.D., found that Mr. Frank had 

esthesioneuroblastoma and renal cell carcinoma. Dr. Cawley, nevertheless, believed that Mr. 

Frank’s exposure to asbestos could have increased his risk of contracting these malignancies. 

Mrs. Frank then filed an application for dependent’s benefits based on Mr. Frank’s death. The 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board reviewed Mr. Frank’s case and concluded that occupational 

pneumoconiosis did not contribute in a material degree to his death. On April 15, 2009, the 

claims administrator denied Mrs. Frank’s application for benefits based on the Occupational 

Pneumoconiosis Board’s findings. Donald L. Rasmussen, M.D., then reviewed Mr. Frank’s 

records. Dr. Rasmussen found that there was some evidence to support a relationship between 

Mr. Frank’s death from renal cancer and his exposure to aluminum dust. Dr. Rasmussen noted 

that there was nothing in the record to suggest a respiratory cause of death but there was an 

increased incidence of renal cancer among aluminum production workers. John E. Craighead, 

M.D., also reviewed Mr. Frank’s records and found that his cancer was not caused or associated 

with any alleged exposure to the hazards of occupational pneumoconiosis. Dr. Craighead 

indicated that the majority of epidemiological studies found no significant association between 

renal cancer and asbestos exposure. Joseph J. Renn III, M.D., finally, reviewed Mr. Frank’s case 

and found that his death was the result of metastatic renal cancer which had no clear etiology. s 

Renn determined that Mr. Frank did not have occupational pneumoconiosis or asbestosis. Dr. 

Renn further found that Mr. Frank’s occupation did not hasten or contribute to his death. 

The Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board then testified in a hearing before the Office of 

Judges. The Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board considered the opinions of Dr. Cawley, Dr. 

Rasmussen, Dr. Craighead, and Dr. Renn. The Board found that the radiological evidence in the 

case revealed no parenchymal opacities, which suggested that Mr. Frank did not have 

occupational pneumoconiosis. The Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board found that occupational 

pneumoconiosis did not contribute in any material degree to Mr. Frank’s death. The 

Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board maintained that Mr. Frank’s death was the result of 

metastasized renal cancer. On March 13, 2012, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims 

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

September 20, 2012, leading Mrs. Frank to appeal. 

The Office of Judges concluded that the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board’s finding, 

that occupational pneumoconiosis did not contribute in a material degree to Mr. Frank’s death, 

should be affirmed. The Office of Judges concluded that the findings and testimony of the 

Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board were not shown to be clearly wrong. The Office of Judges 

found that, even after reviewing the opinions of Dr. Cawley and Dr. Rasmussen, the 

Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board maintained that occupational pneumoconiosis did not 

contribute in any material degree to Mr. Frank’s death. The Office of Judges also noted that the 

Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board found that Dr. Cawley and Dr. Rasmussen’s opinions were 

vague and lacked scientific support. The Board of Review adopted the findings of the Office of 

Judges and affirmed its Order. 

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

Judges. Mrs. Frank has not demonstrated that she is entitled to dependent’s benefits related to Fr. 

Frank’s death. Mrs. Frank has not shown that occupational pneumoconiosis contributed in any 

material degree to her husband’s death. Bradford v. Workers’ Comp. Comm’r, 185 W. Va. 434, 

442, 408 S.E.2d 13, 21 (1991). The Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board found that Mr. Frank 

died from complications of renal cancer and that occupational pneumoconiosis did not hasten his 

death or prevent him from receiving treatment for his cancer. The opinions of Dr. Cawley and 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Rasmussen are too speculative in nature to support Mrs. Frank’s application for dependent’s 

benefits. The remainder of the record supports the findings of the Occupational Pneumoconiosis 

Board. 

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: April 14, 2014 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Robin J. Davis 

Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

3