STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

November 12, 2014 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

SUSAN J. MARL, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 13-1269	 (BOR Appeal No. 2048957) 

(Claim No. 2013014726) 

MARSHALL COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Susan J. Marl, pro se, 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 26, 2013, in 

which the Board affirmed a November 1, 2013, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of 

Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges denied Ms. Marl’s motion for late filing of protest to 

the December 19, 2012, claims administrator’s decision rejecting her 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. 

West Virginia Code § 23-5-1(b) (2009) states that any claims administrator’s decision is 

final unless it is protested within sixty days of receipt of the decision. West Virginia Code § 23­

5-6 (2003) provides that the time period for filing a protest may be extended, upon a showing of 

good cause, for an additional sixty days. The Office of Judges found that the claims 

administrator’s decision was issued on December 19, 2012; was received by Ms. Marl on 

January 8, 2013; and her motion for a late filing of protest was dated September 3, 2013. As 

noted by the Office of Judges, Ms. Marl’s protest of the claims administrator’s decision was filed 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

well outside the maximum time frame to file a protest enumerated in West Virginia Code § 23-5­

6. The Office of Judges then found that it could not accept Ms. Marl’s protest because the Office 

of Judges no longer had jurisdiction over the claim as Ms. Marl’s protest was filed outside the 

allowable time frame for protests contained in West Virginia Code § 23-5-1(b) and West 

Virginia Code § 23-5-6. The Board of Review reached the same reasoned conclusions in its 

decision of November 26, 2013. 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: November 12, 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 

2