STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

November 22, 2013 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

DARRELL L. HALL, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 12-0314	 (BOR Appeal No. 2046477) 

(Claim No. 2011028728) 

RADFORD & RADFORD, INC., 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Darrell L. Hall, by John Blair, his attorney, appeals the decision of the West 

Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. Radford & Radford, Inc., by Bradley 

Crouser, its attorney, filed a timely response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated February 15, 2012, in 

which the Board affirmed a September 27, 2011, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of 

Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s March 24, 2011, 

decision rejecting Mr. Hall’s claim 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. 

Mr. Hall alleges that he sustained a work-related injury on February 18, 2011. He 

submitted a Report of Injury dated February 18, 2011, in which he stated that he injured his back 

and legs when he accidentally tripped. On February 19, 2011, Dr. McCleary diagnosed Mr. Hall 

with lumbar and lumbosacral sprains/strains, and stated that Mr. Hall reported to him that he fell 

on a scaffold on February 18, 2011. He later noted that a lumbar spine MRI revealed a small disc 

protrusion at L4-5. The employer’s Report of Injury dated March 3, 2011, states that Mr. Hall 

was injured while carrying concrete blocks and indicates that the employer questions the injury. 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On March 4, 2011, Chiropractor Hill stated that Mr. Hall reported injuring his back on February 

18, 2011, when he fell off a scaffold. Mr. Hall stated in a May 25, 2011, deposition that he was 

injured when he slipped on the bottom of a scaffold while holding a concrete block. On June 7, 

2011, several of Mr. Hall’s coworkers, including his supervisor, signed affidavits stating that 

although Mr. Hall mentioned experiencing back pain on February 18, 2011, he never indicated 

that he sustained any type of injury. On March 24, 2011, the claims administrator rejected the 

claim based on a finding that Mr. Hall did not sustain an injury in the course of and resulting 

from his employment. 

In its Order affirming the March 24, 2011, claims administrator’s decision, the Office of 

Judges held that Mr. Hall is not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits in connection with 

the February 18, 2011, incident. Mr. Hall disputes this finding and asserts that the evidence of 

record demonstrates that he sustained an injury in the course of and resulting from his 

employment. 

The Office of Judges found that the evidence of record demonstrates that Mr. Hall did not 

sustain an injury in the course of and resulting from his employment. The Office of Judges noted 

that Mr. Hall’s coworkers were unaware that he sustained an alleged injury. Further, the Office 

of Judges found that Mr. Hall made multiple inconsistent statements with regard to the alleged 

injury. The Board of Review reached the same reasoned conclusions in its decision of February 

15, 2012. 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 22, 2013 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Robin J. Davis 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

DISSENTING: 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

2