1

 STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

JAMES E. MARTIN,

Claimant Below, Petitioner

vs.) No. 20-0198 (BOR Appeal No. 2054605)

(Claim No. 2019008213)

 

MATEWAN UNITED METHODIST, 

Employer Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner James E. Martin, by Counsel Anne L. Wandling, appeals the decision of the 

West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review (“Board of Review”).

1

The issue on appeal is compensability. The claims administrator rejected the claim on 

October 30, 2018. The Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges (“Office of Judges”) affirmed the 

decision in its September 6, 2019, Order. The Order was affirmed by the Board of Review on 

February 21, 2020.

The Court has carefully reviewed the records, written arguments, and appendices contained 

in the briefs, and the case is mature for consideration. 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. 

The standard of review applicable to this Court’s consideration of workers’ compensation 

appeals has been set out under W.Va. Code § 23-5-15, in relevant part, as follows:

(b) In reviewing a decision of the board of review, the supreme court of appeals 

shall consider the record provided by the board and give deference to the board’s 

findings, reasoning and conclusions[.]

1 A response was not filed.

FILED

May 20, 2021

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

. . . .

(c) If the decision of the board represents an affirmation of a prior ruling by both 

the commission and the office of judges that was entered on the same issue in the 

same claim, the decision of the board may be reversed or modified by the Supreme 

Court of Appeals only if the decision is in clear violation of Constitutional or 

statutory provision, is clearly the result of erroneous conclusions of law, or is based 

upon the board’s material misstatement or mischaracterization of particular 

components of the evidentiary record. The court may not conduct a de novo reweighing of the evidentiary record. . . .

See Hammons v. West Virginia Off. of Ins. Comm’r, 235 W. Va. 577, 775 S.E.2d 458, 463-64 

(2015). As we previously recognized in Justice v. West Virginia Office Insurance Commission, 

230 W. Va. 80, 83, 736 S.E.2d 80, 83 (2012), we apply a de novo standard of review to questions 

of law arising in the context of decisions issued by the Board. See also Davies v. West Virginia 

Off. of Ins. Comm’r, 227 W. Va. 330, 334, 708 S.E.2d 524, 528 (2011). 

Mr. Martin, a pastor, alleges that he sustained a compensable injury on October 11, 2018. 

He sought treatment at Tug Valley ARH Emergency Room that day and was diagnosed with right 

shoulder strain. An x-ray showed no fracture. Mr. Martin returned the following day and reported 

severe shoulder pain. The claims administrator rejected the claim on October 30, 2018.

Mr. Martin underwent a right shoulder MRI on December 26, 2018, which showed a fullthickness tear of the majority of the infraspinatus tendons, a glenoid labrum SLAP tear, an 

additional tear of the anterior inferior glenoid labrum, degenerative osteophytes and subchondral 

edema in the acromioclavicular joint. Mr. Martin saw Stanley Tao, M.D., on January 21, 2019. Dr. 

Tao noted that he reviewed the MRI and diagnosed a complete rotator cuff tear. 

Mr. Martin testified in a January 25, 2019, deposition that on the day of his injury, he was

walking from the church to the parsonage, where he lives, to meet a contractor. Mr. Martin stated 

that he was loading his bookbag and laptop into his truck when he injured his right shoulder. He 

testified that his job duties as pastor required him to check with the contractor on a daily basis, and 

he was therefore required to travel from the church to the parsonage. Mr. Martin admitted that he 

had a prior right shoulder injury. At that time, doctors told him he may have a tear but 

recommended only physical therapy. Mr. Martin asserted that he recovered from that injury. 

In a June 10, 2019, Record Review, D. Kelly Agnew, M.D., noted that Mr. Martin sustained 

a right shoulder injury in 2014, at which time an orthopedic surgeon suggested a partial thickness 

tear had occurred. Dr. Agnew found that Mr. Martin’s right shoulder symptoms began in 2012 and 

noted that he was previously a coal miner. Further, Mr. Martin was sixty-two years old, which 

contributes to the degenerative rotator cuff process. Dr. Agnew opined that the mechanism of 

injury described by Mr. Martin is not likely to cause a rotator cuff injury. Dr. Agnew stated that 

the MRI findings are purely degenerative in nature. He explained that Mr. Martin had degenerative 

osteophytes which cut into the rotator cuff tendons every time he reached overhead or to the side 

for many years. Dr. Agnew noted that degenerative changes were also seen on a 2014 right 
3

shoulder MRI that were consistent with a small full thickness tear. Dr. Agnew concluded that there 

was insufficient evidence to show that Mr. Martin sustained a work-related injury on October 11, 

2018. 

The Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s rejection of the claim in its 

September 6, 2019, Order. The Office of Judges first addressed the employer’s argument that Mr. 

Martin was not in the course of his employment when he placed his bookbag in his truck. The 

Office of Judges determined that Mr. Martin was required to oversee the contractors working on 

the parsonage as part of his duties as pastor. The work on the parsonage was approved by the 

church’s Board of Trustees. Mr. Martin was therefore in the course of his employment. The Office 

of Judges determined, however, that Mr. Martin did not sustain a work-related injury on October 

11, 2018. None of the medical treatment reports of record address the alleged mechanism of injury. 

Further, the Office of Judges found that the records failed to adequately address the preexisting 

right shoulder issues. In his record review, Dr. Agnew found that the 2018 MRI showed nothing 

but degenerative changes. He asserted that the MRI showed significantly retracted supraspinatus, 

infraspinatus, and subscapularis tendons, indicating a chronic injury. He found no evidence to 

support an acute, traumatic injury. The Office of Judges concluded that it was more likely than not 

that Mr. Martin’s action of placing a bookbag on the seat of his truck did not result in a 

compensable injury. The Board of Review adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of 

the Office of Judges and affirmed its Order on February 21, 2020. 

After review, we agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the Office of Judges as 

affirmed by the Board of Review. For an injury to be compensable it must be a personal injury that 

was received in the course of employment, and it must have resulted from that employment. 

Barnett v. State Workmen’s Comp. Comm’r, 153 W.Va. 796, 172 S.E.2d 698 (1970). The Office 

of Judges based its decision on Dr. Agnew’s report. Dr. Agnew performed a thorough review of 

Mr. Martin’s medical records and provided a well-supported opinion that Mr. Martin did not 

sustain an acute injury on October 11, 2018. The medical records show that Mr. Martin had 

preexisting, noncompensable right shoulder degenerative changes and the MRI showed no acute 

injury. Therefore, the decision of the Board of Review, affirming the Office of Judges’ Order, is 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.

ISSUED: May 20, 2021

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Evan H. Jenkins

Justice Elizabeth D. Walker 

Justice Tim Armstead

Justice John A. Hutchison

Justice William R. Wooton