1

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

CURTIS MORRILL,

Claimant Below, Petitioner

vs.) No. 22-ICA-198 (BOR Appeal No. 2058210)

(JCN: 2021022067)

LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS, INC.,

Employer Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Curtis Morrill appeals the September 27, 2022, order of the Workers’ 

Compensation Board of Review (“Board”). Respondent Lifepoint Hospitals, Inc., filed a 

timely response.1 Petitioner did not file a reply. The issue on appeal is whether the Board 

erred in affirming the April 22, 2022, decision of the Workers’ Compensation Office of 

Judges (“OOJ”) which affirmed the claim administrator’s denial of compensability for Mr. 

Morrill’s claim arising out of Covid-19.

This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51-

11-4 (2022). After considering the parties’ arguments, the record on appeal, and the 

applicable law, this Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For 

these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the Board’s order is appropriate under 

Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

Mr. Morrill, a maintenance worker at Raleigh General Hospital (“RGH”), tested 

positive for Covid-19 on March 29, 2021, and was admitted as a patient at that hospital 

from April 6, 2021, through April 10, 2021, for treatment for Covid-related pneumonia and 

mild respiratory distress. He was initially treated at RGH by Timothy Lane, D.O.

Mr. Morrill completed a Covid Exposure Questionnaire at the request of his 

employer, in which he stated he had no known exposure to a Covid-positive patient. The 

questionnaire is unsigned but is dated March 31, 2021. It states Mr. Morrill worked in many 

Covid-positive patients’ rooms, and that while doing so, he wore a gown, gloves, surgical 

mask, and a PAPR (powered air-purifying respirator), and washed his hands when he 

1 Petitioner is represented by Reginald D. Henry, Esq., and Lori J. Withrow, Esq. 

Respondent is represented by Jane Ann Pancake, Esq., and Jeffrey B. Brannon, Esq.

FILED

June 15, 2023

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

finished. Mr. Morrill stated he began having Covid-19 symptoms on March 30, 2021, and 

tested positive on March 31, 2021. Further, he stated he had no known exposure from any 

co-worker, and that he had been to the grocery store, but that he wore a mask wherever he 

went.

Mr. Morrill submitted a WC-1 form, signed on April 9, 2021, stating that he worked 

as a plumber and maintenance worker and that he contracted Covid-19 while working in 

hospital rooms occupied by Covid-19 patients. The form was signed by a D.O. at RGH, 

but the signature was illegible. The physician noted that Mr. Morrill had pneumonia due to 

Covid-19, and was admitted to RGH, but stated his admission was due to a nonoccupational condition. Thereafter, Mr. Morrill submitted an amended WC-1 form, also 

signed on April 9, 2021, that contained an amended physician’s indication that the 

condition was the result of an occupational disease, stating that Mr. Morrill “most likely 

acquired Covid-19 while working as a housekeeper” in the hospital, and was “responsible 

for cleaning rooms vacated by Covid-19 patients.” This amended version was signed by 

Dr. Lane. As discussed below, Mr. Morrill later testified that the amendment was an 

attempt to correct Dr. Lane’s initial misunderstanding regarding Mr. Morrill’s occupational 

exposure.

The claim administrator issued an order dated May 3, 2021, denying Mr. Morrill’s 

claim on the basis that there was no evidence that an injury or disease occurred in the course 

of and resulting from his employment. Mr. Morrill protested the order.

Mr. Morrill was deposed on August 10, 2021, and testified that he worked in the 

RGH maintenance department and was the only employee on the night shift during the 

month of March 2021. He stated he had documentation showing the dates and times he 

worked and all the work orders from February 26, 2021, to May 10, 2021, which showed 

the jobs he performed in the rooms of Covid-19 positive patients. He testified that based 

on these documents, it appeared that he first entered a Covid-19 patient’s room on March 

5, 2021, to check on the heat. He entered another Covid-19 patient’s room on March 23, 

2021, to check a mattress. He testified that Dr. Lane’s statement on the amended WC-1 

form that he cleaned rooms vacated by Covid-19 patients was incorrect. He performed 

maintenance in patient rooms while patients were present and did not work in the 

housekeeping department. He did not understand why Dr. Lane initially marked that his 

condition was non-occupational but stated Dr. Lane later told him he had not been aware 

that Mr. Morrill was a hospital employee. He testified that once he and Dr. Lane talked 

about it, Dr. Lane told him he most likely acquired the disease while working at the 

hospital.

Mr. Morrill testified that he wore personal protective equipment (“PPE”) including 

gloves, a mask, and glasses at all times while he worked at the hospital, but when he entered 

a Covid-19 patient’s room, he was required to wear enhanced PPE, including a gown and 

the PAPR respirator. He testified that sometimes the gloves he wore in Covid-19 patients’
3

rooms would become compromised or torn by the duct tape that was around the windows 

of those rooms to seal them for HEPA filtration. He testified that he could be in a Covid19 patient’s room for fifteen minutes to an hour, or even longer, depending on the job.

Mr. Morrill testified that he began feeling unwell on March 29, 2021, and was tested 

for Covid-19, and later learned the test was positive. His wife tested later that day and was 

also positive, though she never developed any symptoms. Sometime later, one of their 

children tested positive. Mr. Morrill testified that he did not believe he contracted Covid19 from his wife because she worked as a bank teller in an isolated area where she had no 

direct contact with people. Two of her coworkers tested positive sometime after she did, 

but he testified that no one was sick at her workplace before she tested positive. He stated 

that before his diagnosis, they did not attend any community functions and he believed his 

only exposure was at work. 

By order dated April 22, 2022, the OOJ affirmed the claim administrator’s denial of

the claim, finding that Mr. Morrill had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that 

his virus was fairly traceable to his employment as the proximate cause. The OOJ’s 

decision found that Mr. Morrill’s testimony was persuasive that he performed maintenance 

tasks in Covid-19 patients’ rooms at RGH. His testimony that he always wore PPE in 

Covid-19 patients’ rooms and was not exposed to any community activities in March 2021 

was also found to be reliable. However, the OOJ found that it was not possible to rule out 

Mr. Morrill’s wife as the source of his infection because it was not possible to know how 

long she was carrying the virus since she was always asymptomatic, and she tested positive 

at the same time he did. While Mr. Morrill always wore PPE at work, the OOJ found that 

it was not likely that he wore PPE at home. Therefore, the OOJ found that it was more 

likely than not that Mr. Morrill contracted Covid-19 at home rather than at work. By order 

dated September 27, 2022, the Board affirmed the OOJ’s decision. It is from the Board’s 

order that Mr. Morrill now appeals.

Our standard of review is set forth in West Virginia Code § 23-5-12a(b) (2022), in 

part, as follows:

The Intermediate Court of Appeals may affirm the order or decision of the 

Workers’ Compensation Board of Review or remand the case for further

proceedings. It shall reverse, vacate, or modify the order or decision of the 

Workers’ Compensation Board of Review, if the substantial rights of the 

petitioner or petitioners have been prejudiced because the Board of Review’s 

findings are:

(1) In violation of statutory provisions;

(2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the Board of Review;

(3) Made upon unlawful procedures;

(4) Affected by other error of law;
4

(5) Clearly wrong in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence 

on the whole record; or

(6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly 

unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Duff v. Kanawha Cnty. Comm’n, 247 W. Va. 550, __, 882 S.E.2d 916, 921 (Ct. App. 2022).

On appeal, Mr. Morrill argues that the Board and OOJ erred by disregarding the 

medical evidence that stated his Covid-19 was occupational in nature, including the 

amended WC-1 form. Mr. Morrill further argues that the OOJ’s reasoning was flawed in 

concluding that he more likely than not contracted Covid-19 from his wife rather than at 

work, because his wife was asymptomatic and tested positive after he did. Moreover, he 

asserts that the assumption that his use of PPE at work would have prevented him from 

contracting Covid-19 was also flawed, as we now know that PPE does not absolutely 

prevent all Covid-19 transmission. As Mr. Morrill was the only night shift maintenance 

worker at RGH during the month of March 2021, he argues that he had repeated 

opportunities for exposure to the Covid-19 virus, and as he was not generally exposed to 

the community during the same time period, it is wholly unreasonable to assume that he 

did not contract Covid-19 in the course of and as a result of his employment.

Upon review, we find no error in the Board’s final order. As we discussed in 

PrimeCare Medical of WV, Inc., v. Brittany Foster, 247 W. Va. 590, 885 S.E.2d 171 (Ct. 

App., 2023), Covid-19 is generally not compensable, as it is a disease of ordinary life, 

unless the six factors contained in West Virginia Code § 23-4-1(f) (2021) are met. We held 

that any decisions by the Board addressing whether a disease of ordinary life follows as an 

incident of occupational disease “must discuss in detail each of the six factors and address 

whether the claimant has satisfied his or her burden to prove the presence of each factor.” 

Id. at __, 885 S.E.2d at 176. As all factors must be met, if a claimant fails to satisfy one of 

the factors, then further analysis is unwarranted. Those six factors are:

(1) That there is a direct causal connection between the conditions under 

which work is performed and the occupational disease; (2) that it can be seen 

to have followed as a natural incident of the work as a result of the exposure 

occasioned by the nature of the employment; (3) that it can be fairly traced 

to the employment as the proximate cause; (4) that it does not come from a 

hazard to which workmen would have been equally exposed outside of the 

employment; (5) that it is incidental to the character of the business and not 

independent of the relation of employer and employee; and (6) that it appears 

to have had its origin in a risk connected with the employment and to have 

flowed from that source as a natural consequence, though it need not have 

been foreseen or expected before its contraction...
5

W. Va. Code § 23-4-1(f). Here, the OOJ’s decision clearly analyzed the six-factor test and 

expressly found that Mr. Morrill did not satisfy the third factor because he could not prove 

by a preponderance of the evidence that his Covid-19 virus was fairly traced to his 

employment as the proximate cause. Although Mr. Morrill’s work may have placed him at 

a heightened risk of exposure to Covid-19, he was found to have worn PPE at all times 

while working, which would have mitigated that risk. However, the likelihood remained 

that he contracted Covid-19 at home, where he wore no PPE, from his asymptomatic wife, 

whose exposure and transmissibility dates were unknown. Accordingly, no further analysis 

was required, and Mr. Morrill’s claim could not be found compensable. We find no error, 

abuse of discretion, or violation of statutory authority in that decision or in the Board’s 

order affirming. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

ISSUED: June 15, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Judge Daniel W. Greear

Judge Thomas E. Scarr

Judge Charles O. Lorensen