Opinion ID: 1365666
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: If considering a question of fact, [i]n most cases we show substantial deference to the factual findings of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board. Plummer v. Workers' Compensation Division, 209 W.Va. 710, 712, 551 S.E.2d 46, 48 (2001). Indeed, we have repeatedly held that: This Court will not reverse a finding of fact made by the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board unless it appears from the proof upon which the appeal board acted that the finding is plainly wrong. Syllabus, Dunlap v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, 152 W.Va. 359, 163 S.E.2d 605 (1968); Accord, Rushman v. Lewis, 173 W.Va. 149, 313 S.E.2d 426 (1984); Conley v. Workers' Compensation Div., 199 W.Va. 196, 483 S.E.2d 542 (1997). However, when considering a question of law, we have a different standard: [w]hile the findings of fact of the appeal board are conclusive unless they are manifestly against the weight of the evidence, the legal conclusions of the appeal board, based upon such findings, are subject to review by the courts. Barnett v. State Workmen's Compensation Com'r., 153 W.Va. 796, 812, 172 S.E.2d 698, 707 (1970) (quoting Emmel v. State Compensation Director, 150 W.Va. 277, 145 S.E.2d 29 (1965)). Also, we note that: When the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board reviews a ruling from the Workers' Compensation Office of Judges it must do so under the standard of review set out in W. Va.Code § 23-5-12(b) (1995), and failure to do so will be reversible error. Syl. pt. 6, Conley v. Workers' Compensation Div., 199 W.Va. 196, 483 S.E.2d 542 (1997). That code section provides, in pertinent part: [The WCAB] shall reverse, vacate or modify the order or decision of the administrative law judge if the substantial rights of the petitioner or petitioners have been prejudiced because the administrative law judge's findings are: (1) In violation of statutory provisions; or (2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the administrative law judge; or (3) Made upon unlawful procedures; or (4) Affected by other error of law; or (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. W. Va.Code § 23-5-12(b) (1995). Bearing these various standards in mind, we turn to the case before us.