STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

FILED 

LANA G. SPROUSE, September 12, 2013 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK WIDOW OF JAMES H. SPROUSE, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

Claimant Below, Petitioner OF WEST VIRGINIA 

vs.) No. 11-1732 (BOR Appeal No. 2046007) 

(Claim No. 920068627) 

WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF
 

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER
 

Commissioner Below, Respondent
 

and
 

TRI-ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.,
 

BUFFALO MINING COMPANY,
 

AND CARBONITE RESOURCES, INC.,
 

Employers Below, Respondent
 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Lana G. Sprouse, pro se, appeals the decision of the West Virginia Workers’ 

Compensation Board of Review. Buffalo Mining Company, by Ann Rembrandt, its attorney, 

filed a timely response. The West Virginia Office of Insurance Commissioner, by Jack Rife, its 

attorney, filed a timely response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated November 21, 2011, in 

which the Board affirmed a May 11, 2011, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of 

Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s January 13, 2010, 

decision denying Ms. Sprouse’s request for dependent’s 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 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

reasons, a memorandum decision is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. 

Mr. Sprouse passed away on September 24, 2008. The death certificate listed the causes 

of death as cardiac arrest, peripheral vascular disease, and renal failure. On November 24, 2009, 

the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board found that occupational pneumoconiosis was not a 

material contributing factor in Mr. Sprouse’s death, and noted there was insufficient evidence to 

establish a diagnosis of occupational pneumoconiosis. The claims administrator denied Ms. 

Sprouse’s request for dependent’s benefits on January 13, 2010. 

The Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s decision, and held that 

occupational pneumoconiosis did not materially contribute to Mr. Sprouse’s death. On appeal, 

Ms. Sprouse disagrees and asserts that she is entitled to dependent’s benefits. Buffalo Mining 

argues that the evidence clearly establishes that Mr. Sprouse did not have occupational 

pneumoconiosis, and that it was not a material contributing factor in his death. The West 

Virginia Office of Insurance Commissioner maintains that it is clear from the preponderance of 

the evidence that occupational pneumoconiosis was not the cause of Mr. Sprouse’s death, nor did 

it materially contribute to it, as found by the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board. 

In Bradford v. Workers’ Compensation Com’r, Syl. Pt. 3, 185 W.Va. 434, 408 S.E.2d 13 

(1991), this Court held that in order to establish entitlement to dependent’s benefits, a claimant 

must show that an occupational disease or injury “contributed in any material degree to the 

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

that occupational pneumoconiosis was a material contributing factor in Mr. Sprouse’s death. It 

noted that the last pulmonary function study administered showed minimal impairment, which 

indicated that prior studies could have shown greater impairment due to a transient condition. It 

also noted that Mr. Sprouse had multiple issues, and that he died of cardiac arrest, a sequela of 

renal failure, peritoneal dialysis and infection, and peripheral vascular disease. The Office of 

Judges also noted that there was no evidence of occupational pneumoconiosis; therefore it did 

not play a material contributing role in Mr. Sprouse’s death. The Board of Review reached the 

same reasoned conclusions in its decision of November 21, 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. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

ISSUED: September 12, 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 

3